[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: multiple architectures

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:

> Of course not.  Those things do not define the architecture.
> If a package is exim4, it is always exim4 regardless of what compiler
> and compiler options were used to build it -- it's dependencies do not
> change, nor do pre-depends, conflicts, suggests or recommends.  However
> with hardware dependencies involved, I no longer know if I can install a
> package by looking at the filename.
> If dpkg is not to support sub-architectures (like amd64, etc) then the
> same package name, say coreutils_5.0-4_i386.deb, could potentially
> contain different hardware dependencies.
> I believe the package name is misleading since this particular
> coreutils_5.0-4_i386.deb may not be installed on i386 since it was built
> with the intent of use on DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=x86_64-linux.  The filename
> containing i386 seems counter intuitive.
> We can already see this in the kernel packages.  The architecture is
> i386 yet the file is named kernel-image-2.4.20-3-k7_i386.deb.  I predict
> that more packages will emerge containing the sub-architecture names in
> the version tag of the package and the architecture set to the base
> architecture.

don't confuse debian policy, and dpkg development.  Dpkg doesn't care about
package names.  We do care about dependency resolvment.

Reply to: