Andreas Radke schrieb:
It's more a question what Arch64 was founded for: to be the bleading edge leading _pure_ 64bit distro around. That's been its goal since the project has started. And I think we did a good job.You may have missed the early discussions when we made decisions that we don't want (though we have could have) multilib compatibility and bi-arch gcc. That was a strict law. It was our way to push the efforts to once get it the same level where the x86 world is.
I missed the discussions, maybe. But this is not a discussion we had a few years ago, this is the discussion we are having now. And just saying "A few years ago, we wanted it this way" is not a good reason.
Offering 32bit compat stuff always means to make it easy for users
No, not to make it easy, but make it possible. As I said in my reply to Daniel, I need a 64 bit OS, but I also need mixed 32/64 bit environments.
but takes much pressure from companies and opensource developers give the x86_64 architecture the time and responsibility it is worth. You can compare it to the question to support closed source stuff or not. We made our decision long ago. So please respect it.
We never denied closed source software out of principle. We always made things "just work". I want standard applications to "just work", without having to bother about which architecture I am on.
Now, again, you gave me a list of ideological reasons not to do it, but where exactly is the point where this damages your "pure" system technically?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
