Re: Stupid idea for biarch support
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry, if this has been already discussed... I've been poking through the
> archives somewhat and could not find it. If this is a stupid idea, then just
> shoot it down right now :)
>
> What if we do the following:
>
> 1. Do a native 64-bit debian where everything goes to /lib64
>
> 2. Have two separate apt databases, one for 64-bit and one for 32-bit
>
> 3. Have some script to diff the two databases to see which packages are
> installed as 32-bit, and which ones are 64-bit.
>
> Basically the 32-bit apps would go where they normally go. For example,
> apt-get foo would install /usr/bin/foo with 32-bit libs in /lib and
> /usr/lib.
>
> Then running the 64-bit environment apt-get install foo would overwrite
> /usr/bin/foo with the 64-bit version with libs in /lib64 and /usr/lib64.
Why should it be allowed to overwrite the file? What if they differ
(as /usr/include/* would [some say]). Just overwriting them with the
wrong files would break a lot.
> Or the apt-get could be 64-bit by default, and then by running
> linux32 apt-get install foo would install the 32-bit version.
>
> No changes to dpkg needed to support biarch? Goswin, any problems with
> this approach?
The 32bit foo would not be listed in the 64bit DB so you have to
install 64bit foo too to get Depends fullfilled.
That makes it rather pointless form the "we don't need to port
everything" point of view.
> I'm Using Gentoo for now, BTW :) Don't know if I want to be constantly
> recompiling though.
How does gentoo handle lib / lib64 stuff?
> Cheers,
>
> Tony
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: