Re: dpkg-architecture adaptations for e.g. uclibc
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:32:16PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> I have not investigated this further but it looks like the mingw32 package
> requires a patch so that it generates cross versions for w32-i386 (GNU: i486-mingw32msvc), and
> not i586-mingw32msvc.
I already discussed this point with the author. Maybe "w32-i386" is a
bad name, and "w32-i586" would be more accurate.
However, there's no sense in compiling win32 applications for anything
lower than Pentium, so why should we throw those optimizations away?
The only exception may be some very rare 486 machines with Windows 95
installed on them.
(for a Linux system, however, a 486 machine of course makes a lot more
> The only correct CPU for Debian is AFAIK i386, which gets translated to i486 GNU CPU. So,
> my guess would be to add w32 to ostable and re-compile mingw32 package to use w32-i386 (and thus
That means, it should be called "w32-i586" instead, which is perfectly
okay for me.
> My patch adresses a different problem of allowing CPU-ABI, CPU-LIBC, OS-CPU-LIBC, OS-CPU-ABI
> and CPU-CPU-LIBC-ABI schemes.
> Supposing that people are willing to split mingw32msvc into
> OS=w32, LIBC=msvc and ABI=ming, the mapping for my dpkg-architecture version would become
> w32-i386-msvc-ming (GNU: i486-w32-msvc-ming), which IMHO would make more sense than i586-mingw32msvc.
This sounds reasonable. BTW, why do you call it "ming" instead of "mingw"?
Also, for every architecture, there are some defaults for the LIBC and ABI.
For w32, msvc and mingw is a very good default for various reasons. Does
your naming sheme allow that? (i.e. making w32-i386 equivalent to
w32-i386-msvc-ming) Or are there only overall defaults for LIBC and ABI
for all architectures?
BTW, I also heard about people who compiled a whole (Debian
based) system for i586 to increase the overall performance of their
system. They, too, had the same problem: How to name this
architecture/cpu? As far as I could see, they "solved" that problem by
adding a "pentium" line (or similar, AFAIR) to their cputable.
That having said, I don't think it isn't the question whether one
wants to compile for i586, i686, etc. There are always good reasons
for some groups to do so. IMHO, the more important question is how to
name that thing. So it would be very nice if dpkg-architecture would
be flexible enough to support that, instead of stepping in the way.