Hi Ralf, On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 12:55 +0000, Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote: > Since when did the 64-bit version of Ubuntu become the new free ubuntu > version?
It is not. Just because we are not willing to incorporate time-consuming tweaks for supporting non-free x86-code on x86_64 does not make it any less Gubuntu. > 1) I don't really see, why there should be differences in policies > regarding closed-source codecs between 368 and x64. Either remove it > from the 386 repositories (and loose about half of the users) or add it > to the amd64 (so the majority of the users that have 64-bits chips will > actually choose to run a 64-bit os) There isn't at the moment. What you are trying to gain here is change in policies thou. Multiarch isn't going to happen anytime soon from what I've seen. > 2) Everybody that needs this (90% of all 64-bit ubuntu users?) is doing > this manually now on amd64 anyway. How is that more stable? I've ran x86_64 on my laptop from 2004-2006 without ever needing what you're asking for. I couldn't play all weird codecs out there, but most of them and all I really wanted to see worked OOTB. Stop spreading FUD please. > 3) The technical details do not seem that complex, concerning we are all > doing this manually now ANYWAY. Are we are not the experts here. So you are building those debs under x86_64 buildds or what? So you already have a patch to make .debs like this for us? Then please show them to us... > In other words: the reasoning that is used to not do this, is both flawed and > in conflict with the official policy. > There are currently four problems for the AMD64 desktop to become usuable > without MANDATORY annoying tweaks by the end-user. More FUD already answered above. > Two of these three have a good workaround, one does not, because the free > solution keeps crashing. > > 1. There is no java-applet support. Blackdown used to work, but since > Feisty it has been crashing consistently when invoked. Yes, there are > bug-reports about this since Feisty. No developper involvement though. Does not belong in this bugreport. > 2. Wine32. There are wine32 packages specially for 64-bit ubuntu > thanks to WineHQ. Maybe it's a good idea to just move those packages > into the standard repositories, since Ubuntu refuses to do the same, and > wineHQ is the official distrobutor of Wine. (i.e. its a trusted source). > Bugs have been filed about this since forever. No developper involvement > though. Does not belong in this bugreport. Basically you're asking for multiarch (again). From what I've seen wine for Win x86_64 is about to happen or something... > 3. Flashplugin-support. The 64-bit repository does contain a > flashplugin-nonfree package, and it installs the 32-bit version of > flash. They just forgot to do nspluginwrapper. Bugs have been filed > about this since forever. No developper involvement though. Does not belong in this bugreport. BEARD! I've seen asac upload stuff to that extent. > 4. Mplayer32/gstreamer0.10-pitfalldll . We don't need 32-bit mplayer or > 32-bit gstreamer plugins, we just need them to work with 32-bit codecs. > Since totem-gstreamer is the default browser-plugin and video-player, > what we need is 32-bit pitfalldll. Shouldn't be too complicated. There > have been mplayer32 packages (and firefox32 packages) floating around > all over the internet. Estimated gues about a hundred. Yet zero in the > repositories. Are you intentionally blocking them? No. We just doesn't believe in that solution. I'm sure you can find more on the subject in the archive for the ubuntu-devel mailinglist. > 5. Popular games and applicaties that offer both source-code and 32-bit > binaries on their website are not in the repositories. Flock, Songbird, > Urban Terror, World of Padman. Current solution getdeb.net (why you > never made this guy a motu is beyond me, he packages more by himself > than half the repo's) What licence are those under? If that guy wants to become a MOTU he's free to. It's way beyond our rights to force him. > So, what's up with the systematic 64-bit sabotage? There is none... -- Nafallo Bjälevik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- The 64bit mplayer binary/package can't use the 32bit win32codecs to play *wmv files. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/571 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
