Re: additions to dpkg-architecture
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > For example, suppose you support a new OS, such as the w32 platform.
> > Currently, your only choice is "w32-i386", which means that you must
> > use an i486-mingw32msvc Compiler. However, for a w32 system a i486
> > compile doesn't make a lot of sense. Since those systems (except very
> > old Windows versions) need at least a Pentium, it is reasonable to
> > compile such a distribution at least for i586, not i486.
> The only sensible choice would be w32, w32-i486 or w32-i586. Nothing
> dictates the use of -i386 in a new architecture name.
If that was true, you would shorten die "linux-i386" Debian architecture
with "linux" instead of "i386". In fact, it's the "linux-" or "gnu-"
which can be left, not the "i386".
Illustration for w32:
$ cat /usr/share/dpkg/ostable
w32 mingw32msvc mingw32[^-]*
$ dpkg-architecture -aw32
unknown Debian architecture w32, you must specify GNU system type, too at /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture line 234.
$ dpkg-architecture -aw32-i386
dpkg-architecture: warning: Specified GNU system type i486-mingw32msvc does not match gcc system type i486-linux-gnu.
So, obviously, the "-i386" in "w32-i386" is necessary. As far as I can
see, dpkg-architecuture doesn't allow me to use "w32". Maybe the last
cross compiling patch for dpkg-architecure will allow me to specify
e.g. "w32" as "w32-i586", I'll have to figure that out. However,
currently there's no way to get an architecture "w32" in there.
BTW, adding "w32" to /usr/share/dpkg/archtable doesn't help, either.
But /usr/share/dpkg/archtable is obsolete, anyway.
Whatever. "w32-i586" is fine for me.