ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[YC Cheng <yc.cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At certain point we might do something like

- run ubuntu in 64bit.
- run most android service in 64 bit.
- run very few android server in 32bit

AFAIK, that's how OSX does in the first moment that they convert to 64bit.

Not sure if eventually we might come to a point that we request user to
submit app to the store in both 32bit and 64bit. And maybe in one day, we
only accept app submit in 64bit.

If we all agree that will eventually comes, maybe try to prepare for it as
long as we got chances.

2015-09-14 20:37 GMT+08:00 John McAleely <john.mcaleely@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>
>
> On 14 September 2015 at 13:32, Oliver Grawert <ogra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>> Am Montag, den 14.09.2015, 12:12 +0100 schrieb John McAleely:
>> > I like the sound of multiarch for two reasons:
>>
>> well, if you want the rootfs to be able to actually do multiarch (not
>> sure if you are using the term in context of the typical use of
>> debian/ubuntu here), be prepared for a massive image size penalty since
>> we will have to seed all the 32bit libs along the 64bit ones in that
>> case ...
>>
>
> I do, but I'm still new enough around here that it's wise to check.
>
> The size penalty is one I hadn't formally considered, but I would want to
> size it before committing to it. I personally think the cost comes under
> the 'price of compatibility with existing store binaries', so if that goal
> enabled the 32bit libs to be shrunk in size, then so be it.
>
> As I see things, the current proposal (to keep Ubuntu 32bit) defers any
> such decision, and we know that long term bets on the cost/capacity of
> storage tend to pay off in the direction of using more :-)
>
> J
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>