[Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Please support the ppc64 architecture in 'linux-2.6'

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 07:16:09AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Hello Sven,
> 
> On 05-Aug-16 21:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:22:32PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > > Anyway, the patch to support the native ppc64 kernel is very simple.
> > > It adds only 8 lines and two symlinks to the linux-2.6 package. Please 
> > > make things a little easier for me and for the native ppc64 archive by 
> > > applying the patch.
> > 
> > Yeah, well, nobody in the kernel team is convinced by your approach, so i am
> > not really sure we want to to support it, but you are free to try convincing
> > us again :).
> 
> I understand that you do not have any technical reasons against the 
> patch, but you outrightly refuse to support the ppc64 port in any way.
> 
> This is not a very helpful attitude.
> 
> The native ppc64 port is explicitly supported in the current 'unstable' 
> versions of dpkg, apt, gcc-4.0 and many other packages. I do not see
> a good reason why the linux-2.6 package should refuse to support it.

Where it should not be, and you forced that support in without any
communication with the rest of the powerpc debian developpers.

> If you have something against the native ppc64 port, please discuss
> this in the appropriate places and try to convince the people who
> like to have a full 64-bit user space on ppc64 to use something 
> different.

Sure, i will. And once the biarch kernels are in, and we start to have ppc64
libraries and choice apps, they will move by themselves.

I have some unofficial numbers showing that the pure-64 approach represent a
performance hit of around 20% (8 minutes compared to 10 minutes or so for a
compilation run).

> I seriously doubt that you will be able to provide a reasonably
> complete 64-bit environment with your biarch approach. Maybe I
> will change my mind if you manage to convince the maintainers
> of essential library packages like xorg-x11, gnome, qt and kde to
> provide biarch versions of their packages.

Well, indeed, but it would be easier to get this done if you pqrticipated. I
still have to investigate and see if it is easily possible to have 64bit
binaries link with 32bit libraries, which would be neat, but i fear this will
not be the case.

And yes, we aim at having ful biarch support for etch.

> But in the meantime, please do not block the alternative native 
> ppc64 approach which is already there.

Let's first have a study of the way we are going to go, and the advantages and
inconveniences of each, and then, we can take a decision in full knowledge.

Still the aim for etch is biarch support, and not polluting random package
with ppc64 stuff we don't really want to have.

Friendly,

Sven Luther