Re: additions to dpkg-architecture
On Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, Volker Grabsch writes:
>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".
Actually, the 'linux-' part isn't really optional either... because 'linux' really
means 'glibc'. You typically need a different toolchain to link against, say, uclibc.
I'll say again here more briefly what I sent to the originator of this thread
There are machines with different arch's that are compatible (eg. i86), and
there are machines with the same arch that aren't compatible (eg. built vs uclibc
or with -msoftfloat or chips like ARM that have big/little endian 'switches')
So: it's a mess, and more power to ya if you want to try and figure it out.