[crux64] multilib vs. pure 64

Mike VanRoy mvanroy at bellsouth.net
Fri Jun 27 22:28:52 UTC 2008


Greetings:
FYI, I have been running a "pure 64" (no multilib) version of crux for a 
couple of years.

Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:12:36 +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:25:33AM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi there,
>>>       
>> Hello,
>>
>>     
>>> I'll start a separate thread to avoid polluting the "soft-dep" thread. A
>>> number of people seem to have rather strong feelings against multilib,
>>> however i get the impression that the impact is in fact not that big. To
>>> help us with deciding, here's a summary of what I think would be a good
>>> approach:
>>>
>>> 1. core-x86_64/{glibc,gcc,binutils,bin86} multilib
>>>       
With "pure 64" ,deviation from standard Crux is minimal and almost all 
the ports build with no (or minimal)
patching.
IMHO multilib is more trouble than it's worth.

I do see some drawbacks, but most have alternatives:

1- I admit the lack of a good flash player is a pain, but gnash and 
swfdec are still in dev.
2 - xpdf is a good replacement for Acroread.

> So do I understand that correctly that it's mainly a question of whether
> we want a multilib toolchain by default?
>
> Thanks, Johannes
>   
For what it's worth, my vote is no to multilib.

If anyone is interested, I have a rudimentary patch for pkgmk and a 
patching system for
standard (32 bit) ports that need changes.


Thanks ... Mike



More information about the crux64 mailing list