On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 20:22 +0100, Robert de Bath wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 13:20 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > >> I was just hit by bug https://bugs.debian.org/736659 after installing > >> gcc-multilib and later rebuilding my initramfs. > >> > >> I don't think this situation of having several x32 packages on the > >> archive (which other packages depend on) while the official debian > >> kernel don't supports x32 at all is sustainable in the long run. > >> > >> Please consider enabling CONFIG_X86_X32 on 3.14 and superior. > > > > I think Ben has been pretty clear in his first reply to this bugreport > > about what needs to happen first. > > Yes, he's made it clear that such a kernel would be considered as much of > a risk as the amd64 syscalls were originally. So I've been quietly waiting > for them to be treated the same way ... When are we going to get a special > variant of the kernel package with this attribute turned on ?
amd64 was a complete new arch, so an arch=amd64 kernel came along with it. But that's rather different to now enabling x32 in the arch=amd64 kernel which is what #708070 is about. Likewise creating a new flavour=x86,arch=amd64 kernel. What the people responsible for the x32 arch on debian-ports do wrt an arch=x32 flavour is up to them, but that's the situation analogous to what you are referring to. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
