FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2008, 06:36 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

Andreas Radke schrieb:

You must have mixed the mailing lists!


Actually, no.


Arch64 was founded to never have support for 32bit compatibilty. So
move this into the community/AUR list.


Yeah, maybe, and I am extending it.


I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as possible.


What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again,
separate repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way), we
destroy the clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean) system.
That's just irrational.


The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells me
that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you give
technical arguments instead of making this personal?


The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to be
easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it alone.
The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in community is
that I want it to be separate from the rest.


Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by
activating the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice it's there.



It would be a reason for me to stepdown here!


Now you're just being childish!
 
Old 07-08-2008, 06:52 PM
RedShift
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

Thomas Bächler wrote:

Andreas Radke schrieb:

You must have mixed the mailing lists!


Actually, no.


Arch64 was founded to never have support for 32bit compatibilty. So
move this into the community/AUR list.


Yeah, maybe, and I am extending it.


I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as possible.


What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again,
separate repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way), we
destroy the clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean) system.
That's just irrational.


The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells me
that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you give
technical arguments instead of making this personal?


The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to be
easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it alone.
The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in community is
that I want it to be separate from the rest.


Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by
activating the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice it's there.



It would be a reason for me to stepdown here!


Now you're just being childish!



100% agree with Andreas, again this is about principles. And I think Andreas has the same principles as me, either you go full x86-64 or you don't. A middle road is messy. If it were up to me the kernel wouldn't even have support for executing 32 bit stuff (right now that option is enabled).

Glenn
 
Old 07-08-2008, 07:02 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:36:42 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:

> The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells me
> that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you give
> technical arguments instead of making this personal?

Sure this all can be done in a technically clean way not touching
pure 64bit core and extra repos.

It's more a question what Arch64 was founded for: to be the bleading
edge leading _pure_ 64bit distro around. That's been its goal since the
project has started. And I think we did a good job.

You may have missed the early discussions when we made decisions that
we don't want (though we have could have) multilib compatibility and
bi-arch gcc. That was a strict law. It was our way to push the efforts
to once get it the same level where the x86 world is.

Offering 32bit compat stuff always means to make it easy for users
but takes much pressure from companies and opensource developers give
the x86_64 architecture the time and responsibility it is worth. You
can compare it to the question to support closed source stuff or not.
We made our decision long ago. So please respect it.

-Andy
 
Old 07-08-2008, 07:14 PM
"Dusty Phillips"
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008/7/8 Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>:
> Offering 32bit compat stuff always means to make it easy for users
> but takes much pressure from companies and opensource developers give
> the x86_64 architecture the time and responsibility it is worth. You
> can compare it to the question to support closed source stuff or not.
> We made our decision long ago. So please respect it.

This is all very noble, but:

1) Arch Linux is not a big distribution that is going to put any
pressure on companies. It doesn't make any difference that way. Hell,
all the Linux distros put together can barely put any pressure on
companies.

2) The core values of Arch Linux have always been based on a pragmatic
approach. I'm not aware of any guideline saying Arch will deliberately
exclude closed source products because they are closed source (mostly
its because we can't license it). Eg: I remember when we had the JDK
in the repos even though the license was, at the time, questionable.

3) Arch64 is not separate from Arch Linux, it should share these
original ideals. They're two architectures under one distro, they
shouldn't have different philosophies.

Being noble and only supporting non-free software or non-32 bit
software is for... well, Debian types.

My two cents only, and I acknowledge that won't even cover the sales
tax on your dollar's worth.

Dusty
 
Old 07-08-2008, 07:17 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Dusty Phillips <buchuki@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3) Arch64 is not separate from Arch Linux, it should share these
> original ideals. They're two architectures under one distro, they
> shouldn't have different philosophies.

I think the issue here is that Arch64 started as a completely
independently-run project, separate from "Arch-core". It was decided
that x86_64 was the "wave of the future", and Arch asked the Arch64
developers to join forces - it seems as though Andreas wants the
original decisions of the Arch64 team to remain honored, even though
they've been "absorbed", so to speak.
 
Old 07-08-2008, 07:25 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Andreas Radke schrieb:
>> I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
>> supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
>> spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as possible.
>
> What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again, separate
> repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way), we destroy the
> clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean) system. That's just
> irrational.
>
> The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells me that
> you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you give technical
> arguments instead of making this personal?
>
> The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to be easily
> accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it alone. The reason I
> don't want this (at least the core of it) in community is that I want it to
> be separate from the rest.
>
> Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by activating
> the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice it's there.

I have to side with Thomas here on the fact that no technical
arguments were brought up. That irks me just a bit - that "no because
no" seems to be a valid reason. It's not.

That said, I am very very neutral on this. Thomas' plan does not
integrate anything at all, it just puts some 32bit libs in a parallel
repo for people to use if they want to (read: users can choose). A
pristine system is all well and good, but as we can all tell from the
existence of the lib32- packages in community, it's not what everyone
wants. What Thomas is proposing is keeping the pristine system
pristine unless someone wants to install the 32bit stuff. I don't have
a problem with this rationale.

*But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a
handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the rationale
is sound, but it sounds like a lot of forward MOTION for little
forward PROGRESS.
 
Old 07-08-2008, 08:15 PM
Loui
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:25:44PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I have to side with Thomas here on the fact that no technical
> arguments were brought up. That irks me just a bit - that "no because
> no" seems to be a valid reason. It's not.
>
> That said, I am very very neutral on this. Thomas' plan does not
> integrate anything at all, it just puts some 32bit libs in a parallel
> repo for people to use if they want to (read: users can choose). A
> pristine system is all well and good, but as we can all tell from the
> existence of the lib32- packages in community, it's not what everyone
> wants. What Thomas is proposing is keeping the pristine system
> pristine unless someone wants to install the 32bit stuff. I don't have
> a problem with this rationale.
>
> *But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
> this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
> skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a
> handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the rationale
> is sound, but it sounds like a lot of forward MOTION for little
> forward PROGRESS.

Well there's nothing stopping people from creating their own 32bit
library repos for x86_64. So just get together and do it eh?

That's why there are things like kdemod and a new arch-games repo.
 
Old 07-08-2008, 08:31 PM
Daniel Isenmann
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:44 -0500
"Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>
> wrote:
> > Andreas Radke schrieb:
> >> I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
> >> supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
> >> spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as
> >> possible.
> >
> > What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again,
> > separate repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way),
> > we destroy the clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean)
> > system. That's just irrational.
> >
> > The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells
> > me that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you
> > give technical arguments instead of making this personal?
> >
> > The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to
> > be easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it
> > alone. The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in
> > community is that I want it to be separate from the rest.
> >
> > Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by
> > activating the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice
> > it's there.
>
> I have to side with Thomas here on the fact that no technical
> arguments were brought up. That irks me just a bit - that "no because
> no" seems to be a valid reason. It's not.
>
> That said, I am very very neutral on this. Thomas' plan does not
> integrate anything at all, it just puts some 32bit libs in a parallel
> repo for people to use if they want to (read: users can choose). A
> pristine system is all well and good, but as we can all tell from the
> existence of the lib32- packages in community, it's not what everyone
> wants. What Thomas is proposing is keeping the pristine system
> pristine unless someone wants to install the 32bit stuff. I don't have
> a problem with this rationale.
>
> *But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
> this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
> skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a
> handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the rationale
> is sound, but it sounds like a lot of forward MOTION for little
> forward PROGRESS.

I really don't see the advantage to do this. Like Aaron said, there are
just about 5-6 apps, which are not available on x86_64. The next thing
is, why should we support it official? There are users out there which
are happy with the lib32-* packages in community. The TUs are doing a
great job on this. Why should we (we seen as dev) support those stuff?
Why not bringing your stuff into community as a replacement for the
lib32-* packages? In my opinion setting up an additional official
repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY
opinion).

There is a big -1 from my side.

Daniel
 
Old 07-08-2008, 08:36 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> In my opinion setting up an additional official
> repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY
> opinion).

Just to be clear here - I think Thomas is offering to do all the work
himself, and setting up a new repo takes about 30 seconds (ssh to
gerolde, run mkdir -p, exit).
 
Old 07-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Daniel Isenmann
 
Default Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36:39 -0500
"Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Isenmann
> <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> > In my opinion setting up an additional official
> > repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY
> > opinion).
>
> Just to be clear here - I think Thomas is offering to do all the work
> himself, and setting up a new repo takes about 30 seconds (ssh to
> gerolde, run mkdir -p, exit).

Not really:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:36:42 +0200
>Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>
> The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to be
> easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it
> alone. The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in
> community is that I want it to be separate from the rest.
>

There will be maintain effort to do and not only by Thomas, he said
it in his second mail.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org