Re: Stupid idea for biarch support
* Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> [040208 09:30]:
> Tony Lindgren <email@example.com> writes:
> > 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.
OK, then it would be a problem.
> > 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.
Yeah that could get messy without merging the databases...
> > 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?
There's pretty good description under section "The 32bit Environment" at:
In general, I have most things working X, gnome, gnumeric, mozilla,
galeon... All just compiled nicely. Things that I've noticed do not yet compile
in 64-bit are abiword, gnucash and wine. But I have not needed the 32-bit
environment so far :)
I have a Debian unstable 64-bit root still waiting, but the glibc did not have
the module-init-tools fix for linux-2.6 in yet, so I decided to wait for
I believe it was fixed in libc-udeb_2.3.2.ds1-10.0.1, at least
that fixed it for ARM, so it would be nice to get the glibc updated to
ds1-10.0.1 on alioth.