Slashdot Mirror
Debian Votes on AMD64 in Sarge
JayBonci writes "According to a message sent to debian-vote, there is now a GR on the table as to whether or not to include AMD64 into the upcoming sarge release, even though it violates part of the LSB (Linux Standards Base). The debian-vote list has more discussion on it. Does this best meet the needs of the users?"
If LSB can't support AMD64, then it's probably time to start putting together a new specification for the LSB. within the next few years, many (if not most) IA32 machines will give way to newer IA64 machines, and for the 'standard platform' project to support only legacy code would be a serious mistake.
I'm guessing the violation of the LSB deals with the default system libs. Where does Debian put the 64-bit libs? Where does the LSB say to put them?
/lib64, which I find totally broken. Sure it allows for a 64-bit install to be built on top of an already existing 32-bit install. But what about when 128-bit processors come out? Will we have a /lib, /lib64, and /lib128? How about when there is no longer need for 32-bit support? The /lib directory would be deprecated, so the /lib64 would exist alone?
/lib and the compatibility libs should have been moved to /lib32. The dynamic linker shouldn't have any problem figuring out what libs are needed, and load the right ones.
/lib, hear's to them, forget the LSB, it is broken.
I think the LSB says to put them in
What should have been done is on 64-bit distros which wish to offer 32-bit backward compatiblity, the default 64-bit libs should be in
So what road did Debian take? If they have the default system libs in
Well, you're just looking at what's public. Most distros the debate is going to be kept within the company. So, you could look at the debates over Debian as a bad thing, or you could realize that this is just indicative of the fact that the community gets more say in the direction of their distribution.