Re: 64-bit packaging details
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Saturday 31 May 2003 18:03, Bob Proulx wrote:
> On x86-64 I would expect /lib to be the native architecture and /lib64
> to be the alternative one. (On ia64 /lib is native 64-bit. My
> expectation is that on ia64 that /libx86 would be the alternative
> 32-bit alternative format. But this does not really exist yet there.)
Exactly. Note that nowadays, all the important architectures
support running i386 binaries with qemu, but amd64 is the only
one that can run them with native speed. It may become 'interesting'
if qemu or ia64 start supporting amd64 binaries. Imagine a
64 bit power mac with /lib, /lib64, /libosx, /libx86 and /libamd64 ;-)
Seriously, for non-native emulated binaries, having a full
file system hierarchy below /emul/<arch>-<os>/, e.g.
/emul/i386-linux/, probably makes more sense.
Isn't this how osf1 and i386-linux binaries are handled on alpha?
> You seem to misunderstand. dpkg does not know this for ia64 either.
> It is something that is wanted there too. Currently Debian treats
> ia64 like the Alpha, as a 64-bit only platform. Of course it also has
> the capability to run 32-bit applications as well. But doing so with
> Debian is an exercise left for the reader.
The feature is also interesting for i386, because it can make it easy
to support i686 or i486 optimized packages. The relationship
between amd64 packages and their i386 counterparts is
not all that different from the i686 vs. i386 relationship.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----