| 1 |
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:39, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Witih amd64 becoming so widespread, this will change. |
| 3 |
You think it's a thing that changes in 2 days? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Doesn't the amd64 team have a set of 32-bit compat libs just to run |
| 6 |
> binary packages? When running 32-bit code, isn't amd64 basically just a |
| 7 |
> glorified athlon-xp? |
| 8 |
Kernel-level code doesn't work. Some 32-bit binaries fails to work, and the |
| 9 |
emul-libs are NOT a way to say "it's 32-bit"... |
| 10 |
There are TOO many differences... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
About p.mask.. no I don't like that solution, p.mask is good for a platform |
| 13 |
profile (for example bsd's, darwin's or linux's), but not to arch level, we |
| 14 |
have -* keywords for that, haven't we? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò |
| 18 |
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ |
| 19 |
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) |
Archives