Re: multiple architectures
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > Checking for arch/os is the wrong way to do it. configure scripts check for
> > features, not operating systems, so dpkg should do the same.
>
> Sure, the requirement idea is grant. However, it does not solve the
> issue of coexisting 32 and 64bit packages. When using my laptop I want
> to install as many i686 packages as possible, buy on the server I want
> to install amd64 packages. Installing i386 packages is a waste of the
> CPU features.
Sure it does. Dpkg installs packages, checks deps, etc. That is all it does.
It is up to frontends to select the appropriate package.
> Making all packages compiled for i*86 and amd64, be *_i386.deb's is
> really not a good idea. There is no way for a 32bit binary package to
> coexist with a 64bit package, since they are named the same. Sure their
> Dependencies differ, but that is not clear until further inspection.
Are you suggesting that we encode the entire dep list(depends, pre-depends,
conflicts, suggests, recomments) into the filename?
> That's not very intuitive for the end user. I am not sure how many
> users know that they have MMX or even worse the CMOV instruction. And
> how would you distinguish packages for CMOV-capable and non-capable
> packages... say, after building them with dpkg-buildpackage?
Again, frontends can display it however they want. Users aren't really
supposed to deal with low-level dpkg, nor debs.
> > Architecture: i386
> > Depends: {mmx}, libc6 (>= 2.3)
> > Conflicts: {sse}
>
> I miss the point on how having SSE prevents your CPU from having MMX?
> My AMD CPUs certainly support both.
Bah, stop being optuse. It was an example, nothing more.
Reply to: