We really don't have the technology to mix-and-match 32-bit and 64-bit stuff in our package manager. Building lib32* of everything is a good compromise IMO. <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Przemek Kulczycki <<a href="mailto:przemekkulczycki@gmail.com">przemekkulczycki@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Martin Pitt <<a href="mailto:martin.pitt@ubuntu.com">martin.pitt@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: >> Moving Wine into Main (or whatever becomes of main with the archive >> reorganization) will require a fair amount of work.  Most of Wine's >> dependencies are already in main, but on amd64 Wine still requires >> ia32-libs for about 15 packages that don't have separate lib32 versions. > > There is at least the theoretical possibility to only offer wine for > i386 again, and provide a wrapper package on amd64 to set up an > appropriate i386 dchroot and install wine in it. > >> I'd like to work on Wine in Ubuntu full time, however as a first step to >> keep me busy I could easily spend a few months modifying these packages >> to work properly in 32 bit mode on amd64.  This is work that will have >> to be done eventually anyway, as 32 bit Windows applications are going >> to be around for a long time. > > I disagree here. Changing source packages to build lib32foo packages > on amd64 is a much better hack than the current ia32-libs package > (which is EBW, not maintained well, not updated for security fixes, > horribly brittle, and will make it to main only over my dead cold > body). But lib32foo is a hack as well, and it utterly complicates > packaging. I think the time for converting several dozen source > packages could actually be spent much better with working on proper > multiarch support (although this takes much more time). > > Having worked a bit on ia32-libs over the past years, I more and more > came to the conclusion that the concept is flawed, and that nowadays > people would be much better off with an i386 dchroot (with some tricks > like bind-mounting /home) which can be kept up to date with security > updates, and doesn't require constant intensive maintenance and source > package changes. > > WDYT? </div></div>I'm wondering if we really need a full 64-bit OS and all applications at all. In [Open]Solaris, only the kernel and some apps are 64-bit, and the rest is still 32-bit because being 64-bit doesn't give them any advantage. I know it's out of scope of this discussion, but maybe instead of having a separate full 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Ubuntu we could try a Solaris way and make a one hybrid 64-bit/32-bit os? -- ## Przemysław Kulczycki >><< Azrael Nightwalker ## # jabber: azrael[na]jabster.pl | tlen: azrael29a # ### www: <a href="http://reksio.ftj.agh.edu.pl/%7Eazrael/" target="_blank">http://reksio.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~azrael/</a> ### -- ubuntu-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel</a> </blockquote></div>