(fwd) Re: Huh? Help (Re: Bug#13626: xmorph: YAFHardCodedi386)
Larry Gilbert <email@example.com> wrote:
: Is it not customary to put binaries compiled for Intel under "i386"? I am
: confused. But I am also new here.
No sweat. This is often confusing to new developers.
By putting 'i386', you're implying that the code *only* works on Intel. If
you use 'any', that implies that the sources can be built for any architecture.
The former might be appropriate for bootstrap tools or other things that are
truly architecture-specific, or for packages like the non-free xtrkcad that I
maintain which is available only in i386 binary form. The latter is the right
thing to do if you're building from source and there aren't any specific
architecture restrictions... which is usually the case.
The package building tools will flag the binary package files with the right
architecture based on where you do the build, so an 'any' in the control file
will become an 'i386' when you build it, but an 'm68k' or 'alpha' or whatever
when other platform maintainers build your package for their platforms.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .