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

Bug#810301: merged /usr support for debootstrap



On Jul 05, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

> > +	case $ARCH in
> > +	    hurd-*)	return 0 ;;
> > +	    amd64)	link_dir="lib32 lib64 libx32" ;;
[...]

> I don't think having to play catch up with src:glibc is a good idea.
> Can't that be determined automatically instead of hardcoding this
> mapping?
I double checked with the glibc people: this could be done with gcc 
-print-multi-lib, but I do not think that depending on gcc is an option 
(also: foreign deboostrap).

> Besides, this code means an unknown architecture doesn't get merged
> /usr support. Is that intended/reasonable?
This would be a (small) problem only for new architectures with multilib 
libraries, and I do not expect that we will have any more of these.
E.g. you can see that arm64 is not in the list since it does not use 
/lib64 for multilib, but only multiarch.

Also, this would not be a big deal anyway because these extra links are 
only needed to install multilib libraries, so if they will be needed at 
development time for a new architecture they can easily be created 
manually before installing the multilib libc package.

Also again, these links are only an interim workaround to support 
merged-/usr systems without rebuilding the library packages: I expect 
that in the future nobody would bother installing non-merged systems, so 
if we can drop support for that then we can just build the multilib libc 
packages to create the /lib64 symlinks themselves when installed.

> >  first_stage_install () {
> > +	case $SUITE in
> > +		etch|etch-m68k|jessie|lenny|squeeze|wheezy) ;;
> > +		oldstable|stable) ;;
> > +		*) setup_merged_usr ;;
> This means “debootstrap stable” on stretch once it's released is going
> to lead to different results compared to “debootstrap stretch”.
I know, but I expected that at some point close to the next release the 
"stable" keyword would be moved. Or is there a better approach?

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: