Re: Newbie question
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:27PM +0100, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> --- Jeremie Koenig <sprite@sprite.fr.eu.org> schrieb:
> > Another point is that the libc's used by these things are doing much
> > to
> > give a UNIX-like API to windows. This will make programs built with
> > them
> > badly coexist with "native" windows programs (i'm thinking of
> > pathnames
> > and such things...). Maybe it's bad enough not to use w32-i386, maybe
> > not...
> so that is one issue, but not a killer problem.
Sure.
> > So win32 is not enough, and cygwin is too much ;) For my case, dos is
> > not enough, djgpp is too much. Can someone think of a word that would
> > reflect the situation ?
>
> Three concepts, not one
> 1. runtime
> 2. operating system
> 3. architecture
But which of these are part of the "debian architecture" concept ?
Traditionnaly, it would be os and arch (as in hurd-i386 or bsd-i386).
Our situation is a bit more complicated since our runtimes sometimes
touch the "OS" area (this is especially true with DJGPP, which uses
other binary types, DPMI extending to run 32bit apps under DOS, ...).
I really can't tell you my preference here, since it varies from day to
day ;)
As promised, the URL of marcus' blurb about architectures handling. His
way may some day provide answers to our existential questions. (in
short: instead of having packages rely upon a debian architecture, the
whole things could be handled by extending the dependency system and
dropping the architecture field of packages.)
http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt
There was some discussion about this on debian-bsd@lists.d.o :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2002/debian-bsd-200202/msg00131.html
--
Jeremie Koenig <sprite@sprite.fr.eu.org>
Reply to: