How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?

[Samuel Cormier-Iijima]

Perhaps a good way to start would be to educate developers about the
"need" for 64-bit (or rather, how to go about making sure their
applications work on other platforms?) I'm currently writing a
bittorrent client (I'd love for it to benefit 64-bit users as well),
but don't have a 64-bit platform to test it on, so I have no clue
about the procedures for
* making the source compilable -on- 64-bit (probably more an issue with gcc?)
* making the source compilable -for- 64-bit
* making the source be able to run on 64-bit
* releasing packages for other architectures (most of the debian/rules
I've seen don't differentiate)

(or else to be able to detect the platform at runtime? are there code
examples for that?)

Anyways, I think the same thing applies to IPv6 and the 2038 bug
(though that'll be obviated possibly by the advent of 64 bit). Putting
up some tutorials and examples could be the first step.

Samuel Cormier-Iijima

P.S. not to be like "WINDOWS HAS DONE THIS, WE NEED TO TOO", but they
have a blog about writing for 64-bit platforms:
http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/category/4140.aspx
maybe something like this for linux would be cool?

On 9/30/06, Kilz _ <kilzzz at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com>
> >To: ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> >Subject: Re: How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?
> >Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:56:32 -0700
> >
> >On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:16:01PM +0200, Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > > Em sáb, 2006-09-30 às 01:14 +0200, Florian Zeitz escreveu:
> > >
> > > > Yes you are certainly right. Many people want it.But from a technical
> > > > point of view it sucks (might be a bit harsh, but isn't that untrue
> > > > after all).
> > > > And understandably developers don't want to have to support something
> > > > that just isn't done the right way.
> > >
> > > I was thinking about this matter of support. Correct me if i'm wrong,
> > > but Firefox's source is only one for 32 & 64 bits, isn't it? I mean,
> > > both are generated from the same source package.
> > >
> > > How hard could it be to add a sort of "hybrid" arch, one which would
> > > compile 32-bit firefox for amd64 the same way it does for i386, but then
> > > just put it in the correct places on the amd64 directory structure on
> > > the binary package?
> >
> >This thread is starting to go in circles; this was discussed at the very
> >beginning.
> >
> >The primary reason this is a lot of work is that it requires that the same
> >thing be done for the development libraries used to build Firefox.
> >
> >So far, the best short-term solution would seem to be the plugin adapter
> >mentioned earlier which would allow 32-bit plugins to be used with 64-bit
> >Firefox.
> >
> >--
> >  - mdz
> >
> >--
> >ubuntu-devel mailing list
> >ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> >https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> If you are referring to nspluginwrapper it needs a lot of work. It causes
> 64bit firefox to crash on a lot of sites. 64bit users currently testing it
> report they need to have flash block installed because of this. They then
> selectively test sites.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Search—Your way, your world, right now!
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
>
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
>
>
>