Re: thoughts on architectures
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:28:35PM -0500, utsl@quic.net wrote:
> Like libc.so.4 on FreeBSD, soon to be libc.so.5? Not compatible with libc5 on
> Linux. It's confusing, but I don't know any good way around it.
Well, then you have to include the OS-ABI field into the dependency name for
all library dependencies. As the information is easily available from the
binary with objdump, this can be as automatic as the soname. You have to
make such decisions based on the universe you live in. If you build a
distribution that only ever has binaries from a single ABI tag, you don't
need to include it. But if you have different ABI tags you want to support,
you mangle it into the dependency name.
> Bear in mind that quite a few systems already support multiple kinds of
> binaries,
My text was written with that in mind.
> Also, FreeBSD (and possibly NetBSD as well) uses the ELF OSABI field to mark
> it's binaries.
The GNU/Hurd does it as well.
> Of course, dpkg doesn't know that...
dpkg doesn't know a lot of things ;)
> That should be correct. A distribution already is just a Package file with
> references to files in the pool. No real change there. The difference would
> seem to be in the generation of the Packages file.
Yes, exactly. And you need some differences in the algorithm that decides
when to compile a package from source for a given architecture (the pool
might contain a compatible but inferior binary package).
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: