[Debian-ppc64-devel] is this port alife?

[Andreas Jochens]

On 05-Nov-01 10:02, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> i try to secure power5 machines (both for this port and for usage
> by the project as a whole) and now hear from Bastian Blank
> (waldi) that there might be no need for such a port since the
> benefits are not overwhelming.
> 
> can you please tell me your take on this?

Some people think that a native 64-bit ppc64 port is not needed 
because programs will run slower when compiled as a native 
64-bit binary compared to the 32-bit version on the same machine
in some cases.

I can confirm that some standard tools run slower as 64-bit versions. 
On my PowerMac G5 many compilations of Debian packages take about 
10% longer for the 64-bit ppc64 version than for the 32-bit powerpc version. 

However, I do not consider this small performance penalty for 
compilations and non-optimized standard tools a reason against 
having a native ppc64 port. 

Applications which use 64-bit calculations and/or a large flat address 
space run faster in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode. For those 
applications, there has to be a 64-bit environment with all the necessary 
libraries. The native 64-bit pp64 port is the easiest way to provide 
those libraries. 

The other ("biarch") approach intends to convert every library package 
in the Debian archive to produce separate 32-bit and 64-bit packages.
This would require a lot of work and it would significantly 
complicate the 'debian/rules' and 'debian/control' files of most 
library packages. I do not think that this is the way to go - and I am 
not alone with this view.

Moreover, I think that 32-bit environments will soon be a thing of the
past, especially for servers and database applications where the 
important programs really benefit from 64-bit mode.

I am convinced that people will use clean 64-bit-only environments in 
the end. It simply does not make sense to have complicated biarch setups 
with two versions of every library just because some programs may be a 
little faster in legacy 32-bit mode.

Finally, to answer the question in the Subject of your mail, 
yes, this port is alive. It is already quite complete with
about 96% of the unstable distribution compiled. 
There are some problems with the public archive of the port
(it basically needs a new host).

Of course, any help will be appreciated.

Regards
Andreas Jochens