| 1 |
On 06/10/2012 17:52, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> In other words, all or nothing. An x32 distro is technically |
| 3 |
> possible, but it would require every last single binary/library/object |
| 4 |
> file/etc *INCLUDING PROPRIETARY PROGRAMS AND BINARY BLOBS* to be x32 and |
| 5 |
> only, and no multilib stuff. If amd64 did not support multilib and |
| 6 |
> plugin-wrappers, it would be a lot less common today. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sec, let me not be misunderstood. You can _still_ have multilib. And you |
| 9 |
could still devise plugin wrappers. But things like nspluginwrapper |
| 10 |
works only by chance with the design. If it was easy to do, we wouldn't |
| 11 |
_need_ multilib to begin with. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In this case the problem is that Chrome uses v8 internally, and getting |
| 14 |
it to use a different ABI library is likely more cumbersome than porting |
| 15 |
and maintaining sid port. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For reference, what Ben referred to is all described in |
| 18 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/x32 . It's also interesting to note that |
| 19 |
Werner Koch of libgcrypt and gnupg fame is also not interested in |
| 20 |
supporting x32. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 24 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives