Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
Debian debates amd64 port
The discussion over whether to put AMD64 processor support into the
Sarge and Sid releases of the Debian distribution has heated up.
The discussion has been brewing for some time, particularly since Chris Cheney's post to the debian-devel-announce list on July 1:
The Debian AMD64 port now has more installed packages than even powerpc making it the second most complete port behind i386. The port is still waiting on Scott Remnant to fix dpkg and for James Troup to allow it into the archive. I sent an email to ftpmaster over 2 weeks ago with no response about the archive issue.
Also, I am starting to get questions from companies and universities running Debian asking when amd64 will be an official port since they are planning to switch to Fedora/SUSE if it is not soon. Do we really want to lose users of a popular platform due to a couple DD's lack of response? If you are concerned about this issue as well perhaps an email to ftpmaster@debian.org could help persuade them this is a larger issue than they realize. After much discussion on Cheney's post, Josselin Mouette proposed a General Resolution (GR) that would require "amd64," based on the pure 64-bit port, to be included immediately in Sid and the auto-building infrastructure, and that Sarge include the amd64 port. The GR also gives amd64 a pass on Linux Standard Base (LSB) compliance, so that non-compliance with the LSB would not be considered a release-critical bug. The discussion on the debian-devel has largely conflagrated into a flame-fest of near-epic proportions -- mostly unrelated to the merits of including amd64 in Sid or Sarge. One can understand why Debian users and developers may be frustrated at the lack of progress in an official AMD64 port. It is not unreasonable to expect a response on such an important issue within a two-week period. Even a terse reply is better than silence. However, it is probably a bad idea to rush the process excessively as well. As Thomas Bushnell states:
Being a part of sid and testing is a requirement for being a part of stable, and regardless of whether something has been excluded from sid for good reasons or bad reasons, it shouldn't be put in stable by some kind of end-run around sid and testing.
Goswin von Brederlow suggests an alternative draft that might make the GR more acceptable. This draft would "overturn the decision (made through inaction) to block amd64 from sid by the ftp-master team," unless amd64 is added to sid, or the ftp-masters team steps up to explain why amd64 should not be added to sid, or there is a change in the ftp-masters team that would "facilitate better communications." At this time, the GR to force AMD64 into Sarge and Sid is waiting on a fifth sponsor to move its status to discussion. Cheney had originally signed on as a sponsor for the GR, but has apparently withdrawn his support for the GR. It is probably for the best that this GR does not come to a vote, in order to allow everyone some cooling-off time on the issue. It is a shame to see something as desirable as an official amd64 port becoming the victim of poor communication (or no communication) and/or personality conflicts. Though there are indeed technical issues to be sorted through to make an official amd64 port happen, it seems that they have taken a back seat. There is little doubt, at least in this writer's mind, that 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture are likely to become the standard over time -- and sooner than the next stable release of Debian after Sarge. If the amd64 port is delayed until after the Sarge release, it seems likely that Debian will lose a number of users who are unwilling to wait until that time to make use of their 64-bit hardware or stay on the 32-bit path. (Log in to post comments)
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 22, 2004 2:23 UTC (Thu) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link] debian to move X86_64/AMD64 port into a fullblown stable distro is goodnews. Developers certainly like X86_64/AMD64 a lot. One really wonders what it actually is that keeps Microsoft from releasing a Windows XP (SP2 integrated) X86_64/AMD64 edition. Its certainly not the CPU or hardware involved that could be the showstopper for a WinXP/X86_64/AMD64 release. Robert
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 22, 2004 9:23 UTC (Thu) by gyles (guest, #1600) [Link] "One really wonders what it actually is that keeps Microsoft fromreleasing a Windows XP (SP2 integrated) X86_64/AMD64 edition. Its certainly not the CPU or hardware involved that could be the showstopper for a WinXP/X86_64/AMD64 release." I believe it needs all new drivers. There's a big job...
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 22, 2004 4:45 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] It's worth noting that if, as now seems certain, sarge goes out without amd64 support, that doesn't mean sarge will never have amd64 support. An amd64 port can be added later, when it's considered ready, probably long before sarge's full-scale successor.The real hope for most of us is for everything that interferes with a sarge release to pass away, so that sarge can be released sooner rather than later. We can't patch sarge until there is a sarge to patch.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 22, 2004 14:39 UTC (Thu) by jondkent (guest, #19595) [Link] It is a real shame than these topics on the Debian lists seem to end up in a flamewar. Unfortunately I feel that this is an indication of the current health of Debian, which as a, until recently, long term Debian user upsets me. Before someone asked, I stopped using Debian because of conflicts like this seemingly blocking progress and I felt that Debian has lost its way over the last year of so.Shame.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 23, 2004 16:35 UTC (Fri) by rompel (subscriber, #4512) [Link] Indeed.I've been using Debian since 1997 and for most of that time have been quite happy. However, for the last several months I've been seriously considering switching. The organization seems to be seriously dysfunctional and the recent fights over non-DFSG-free documentation and, now, amd64 have convinced me that they've lost sight of their user community. --John
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 22, 2004 16:20 UTC (Thu) by markc (guest, #4419) [Link] It is indeed a shame. I've been using Debian professionally for over 10years but have grown increasingly uneasy about the lack of forward movement in general. The lack of respect for Knoppix and how it bolstered otherwise flagging Debian usage really blew me away. To hold back and deny a slick technology to 95% of the Debian userbase because Knoppix didn't cater to less than 5% of it's userbase is just so dumb. The Debian anti-KDE agenda jacks off more than half it's userbase, another really dumb stance... and now there is some lame-brained argument (that I neither know of or want to) against encouraging the development of the next natural "big thing" in computers where linux, for once, has a seriously cool edge over M$... a full fledged 64bit OS system NOW, not in another year when M$ also has some 64bit offering, let alone when other linux distros already offer 64bit ports. The discussion about when PHP5 will become available in sid hasn't even started. Talk about dumb and dumber. I've been using a full 64bit KDE desktop OS for nearly 6 months and will from now on use this distro for all new servers I maintain, now that I am comfortable with it. Thank you Gentoo for saving me from the retarded Debian borg.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 23, 2004 11:57 UTC (Fri) by jondkent (guest, #19595) [Link] I think Debian need to look at how it organises itself and how it releases new versions. As they have inxs if 8k packages and support 11 archs maybe they need to take a look at how Gentoo point releases work. Snapshotting maybe the way forward, i.e. you take all new/updates packages considered stable, merge them with the remainder and release it. This would then become a point release, instead of a r# release. Strict release dates would have to be enforced, say quarterly.It may be sensible for Debian for review the archs supported to ensure the userbase justifies the workload. Just my 2 pennies worth
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 26, 2004 9:52 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] When Gentoo's architecture and package count reach anywhere near Debian's, we'll see how well they scale.Incidentally, Debian's testing distribution (which is where the releases come from) is snapshotted already. This is how releases happen. However, Debian also tries to actually set milestones between releases (ABI transitions, LSB compliance, new installers, etc). I'm not even sure how Gentoo would manage an ABI transition, aside from just breaking all the packages...
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 29, 2004 12:29 UTC (Thu) by markc (guest, #4419) [Link] Your points are very academic and technical according to the Debianmantra. Fine. However I would suggest that 90% of potential users could not care less about 90% of the points you raise nor for 90% of the packages that Debian maintains. The 10% of those 8k packages that appear on the Knoppix CD are the ones that really count over all the rest by at least a margin of 10:1. The significant and major advantages of using a Debian based system are apt-get and packages.debian.org, from a users perspective, elsewise, most everything else about Debian involves dealing with a brick wall of formality and condescending developers. BTW, IMHO, Gentoo has some serious flaws too. They don't have an apt-get for quick and easily installable binary packages and the python + file-system based "portage" managing code sucks badly and will not scale, as you point out... but for the prime substance of an end-users cutting-edge desktop, it is far more uptodate and managable than Debians "unstable" branch ever could be. Gentoo needs to be rewritten from scratch using C/C++ for a single apt-get/emerge interface and using SQLite for all meta-info (ie; fast and extensible). Both Debians and Gentoos update systems are painfully slow and neither "emerge sync" nor "apt-get update" will scale to double their current respective sizes. Both systems need to look at providing diffs for package updates. Debian solved a certain set of problems managing a linux system, Gentoo solves a different set of issues for an uptodate desktop but the ideal or "best" distro system does not yet exist.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 23, 2004 15:30 UTC (Fri) by mmealman (guest, #9223) [Link] The problem is that Debian actually has a very closed developer process. I once used Debian and ran an app called mirrordir that wasn't updated as it needed to be. I contacted the developer for it and had permission to take the package over(he didn't have the time to keep it updated), but it took 8 months for me to get approved as a developer so I could actually update it. By that time the origional developer had already gotten back to updating it.Compare that to Gentoo where anybody can submit ebuilds or even build systems and they'll see them incorporated into the core very quickly. This allows it to scale. Under Debian anyone who can actually do anything is always busy, so hardly anything new happens. With more open dists, anyone can easily contribute, so you're not brain draining your core team for things like amd64, KDE or PHP5 support.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 23, 2004 19:02 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Why this is reminding of the recent xfree86 split?
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 24, 2004 7:39 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Indeed you didn't have time to keep it up-to-date. Debian wants to have a "father" for each package, not just for one-time update. One of the things that are tested on those 8 monthes is whether or not you're will to /maintain/ a package. The original maintainer eventually did.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 26, 2004 9:50 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Rather than becoming a developer, you could have simply submitted a patch to the BTS, prepared an NMU, and asked another developer to sponsor it for you. That would have taken much less time (probably a month at most waiting for a sponsor; I don't know what kind of patch-writing skills you have).Given the level of trust and skill required to maintain Debian packages, 8 months seems more than reasonable. Maybe it's not enough, because my NM process took 8 months, and I've had my share of mistakes.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 27, 2004 20:18 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Yeah, right. That would almost certainly not work. For some weird reason, NMUs are frowned upon. It's as if you're insulting the original packager, even if all you're doing is fixing year old bugs. The end result is a whole lot of discussion about who owns what and very little forward progress. Debian is in serious pain right now.I'd love to see Debian encourage NMUs, especially if a bug is older than, say, 1 month. This way, packages wouldn't fester quite so bad.
Debian debates amd64 port Posted Jul 29, 2004 21:04 UTC (Thu) by andrel (subscriber, #5166) [Link] The release team have been encouraging NMUs.
|
|||||||||||||
