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

Re: amd64 and dpkg and so



* Marc Miller <marc.miller@amd.com> [030828 12:44]:
> What I think you're trying to do now is to allow 64-bit packages to
> depend on 32-bit ones where a 64-bit version of the dependency isn't
> really necessarily.  The example of the 64-bit /bin/ls, for example.
> Not really necessary, but then again, the only difference between
> 32-bit /bin/ls and 64-bit /bin/ls is really a minimal increase in code
> size.  Rather than "why port it?" I would ask, "why not?"  Make 64-bit
> packages depend on 64-bit packages and leave 32-bit packages dependent
> on 32-bit packages.  

Porting /bin/ls is not that much of a problem.  I believe that builds
out of the box.  But we know that we will not have a 100% port of Debian
to amd64 for a long time because of the 1000s of packages... so we want
to be able to install some 32bit packages on top of our system.

That means we _need_ all libraries to be biarch.  And, that is the big
part of the port.

B.

man! biarch glibc takes a while to build... maybe I need a faster disk...

-- 
				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

Attachment: pgpkTyj7wVyQ1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: