On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:27:37 +0200 Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@crux.nu> wrote:
Hannes Mayer [2008-06-17 16:20]:
Hi Hannes,
A pure 64Bit version or 32 and 64 multilib? The first will be very easy. I working with my crux 64bit Version since over one year. I have only 30 new / different ports. Just get them if you like. http://ecarux.de/crux86_64/
At the moment it looks like we'll be getting started with an updated version of your ISO, i.e. a pure 64 bit system.
I don't know yet whether a multilib system would be better[tm]; we'll have to make up our minds later on this one :)
Sure pure64 has it's advantages in that it's a single library set, but there are a number of sacrifices you have to be willing to make in terms of applications that are 32 bit only. Of course flash and acroread come to mind. But there's also proprietary media codecs, you can also say goodbye to wine, and any games out there you might like to play. Until recently there was no java plugin for 64 bit browsers as well. However I just discovered that RedHat is developing one in OpenJDK. Personally I feel rather than targeting a specific alternative platform, we should be coming up with a solution for any number of systems. We have had people targeting other systems other than amd64 such as a port to openbsd and even versions for the PPC and ARM processor. While I'll be the first to agree that my multiarch solution is probably not the best, however, it has allowed me to keep in sync with the official crux repos with relative ease as it makes changes required of me to make minimal, git merges are always conflict free aswell. I have a set of 110 ports that require compat32 and or x86_64 changes across core/opt/xorg/contrib. Most of time I will only need to edit these is when there is a change to the build script otherwise it's just a matter of fetch/merge/push. Again, I think a more holistic approach should be taken if CRUX officially decided to adopt another platform such as amd64. -- Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>