Re: Multi-arch

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

Ludovic Brenta skrev:
> Bj�rn Persson a �crit :
>> Is multi-arch useful in an altogether free system in some way that eludes me?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Today, for example, OpenOffice works only on 32-bit architectures; if
> you want to run it on an amd64 machine, you need biarch or multiarch.
> There are probably other cases where compiling for one of the
> architectures in a multi-arch system is problematic.

That sounds like a defect in OpenOffice, so in that case multi-arch 
support functions as a workaround for a buggy program.

> Also, 32-bit binaries use less memory than 64-bit binaries do. It makes
> sense to run 32-bit binaries on 64-bit machines, if those binaries do
> not benefit from the larger address space or 64-bit instructions.

Ah. Yes, that's a good reason if the difference in memory usage is 
significant. (A factor two perhaps?)

> Another benefit of multiarch is that you can e.g. compile i386 binaries
> on an amd64 machine and run them on i386 machines.

And then the compiler would also be an i386 program I presume. What are 
the benefits of that over an AMD64 to i386 cross compiler?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu