Re: thoughts on architectures
Hi,
(I am not subscribed. You might CC me on interesting threads/sub-threads)
From: utsl@quic.net
"The major oversight is that he completely fails to mention libc. And for us,
that remains a big issue. Right now, and for immediately forseeable future,
I'm not going to be using glibc."
There is nothing special about libc. It Depends on some kernel, cpu and
possibly other stuff, and provides a library api (soname).
Sonames should be handled completely automatic by the build system (in
Debian they aren't) with optional overrides in case of incompatible libs
with the same soname (don't do that, though).
Programs also might depend on an object format, or you might assume the
object format is common for all programs depending on the same interfaces.
EG, if you assume a common object format, all packages depending on
libc.so.6 are ELF by definition. Otherwise the object format has to be
coded into the dependencies.
A program that depends only on i386, libc.so.6 and optionally elf, will run
on all systems that have libc.so.6, understand the elf object format and can
emulate or provide i386 instructions.
Philipp:
"However, we CD image builders are simple folk with an include/exclude
mentality and not much time for subtle distinctions."
My proposal shall not worry you. A distribution will look similar to the
distributions that exist in Debian right now. There is no need to change
how a distribution will look to a user. For you and others, it will simply
be a list of packages to pick from, out of a pool.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: