Re: chroot64 the chroot32
On 31-Jan-2008 10:27.51 (GMT), Anton Piatek wrote:
> I couldnt think of a good way to solve it with chroots, as that would
> become infitite looping
(not being rude to any chroot users...)
I don't get the whole chroot thing. I ran it for a short period of time
as I use Skype for work purposes, but I keep a small number of 32-bit
libraries installed in my user area to run it now, rather than install an
entire chroot for one application.
The underlying issue is that Debian's way of handling multiarch is a little
flawed (imho, of course). It would be nice if dpkg could handle multiple
binary architectures on platforms that support it, and end the necessity to
keep a second system installed in a subdirectory somewhere. powerpc &
powerpc64 being the other system that would really appreciate the loving that
proper multiarch support would bring. sparc & sparc64 also, but I don't know
what the state of Debian sparc is these days, or even if it's still being
developed.
Fedora handles biarch quite well, although rpm is fairly ugly. 64-bit
libraries are installed into /lib64 and /usr/lib64, whilst 32-bit is kept in
/lib and /usr/lib. Common files are an issue - if you install both 32 and
64-bit libraries, then common files in /usr/share are deleted if you remove
one of the architectures, meaning you have to reinstall the remaining pakage
to get those files back.
We could learn and improve upon this arrangement. Give dpkg multiarch
support, by tracking package contents for each installed architecture.
--
rob andrews :: pgp 0x5c205974 :: rob@choralone.org
Reply to: