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

Re: Proposal: Adding more architecture options to dpkg (was: Re: Adding Hurd architecture/os to dpkg and packaging scripts.)

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 10:36:14AM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> When you make these changes to dpkg, try to find a way to deal with
> platforms that handle two different architectures.  (e.g. UltraSparc
> machines handle sparc and sparc64, intel machines handle i386 and the
> proposed i586 distributions.)  It would be nice to build and install
> packages for both architectures on these machines.  

Wait a minute. I feel there are two different issues here. You mean
maintaining a tree of allowed install-architectures for a package, right?

For example:

i386 < i486 < pentium-optimized

sparc < ultrasparc

This would require more changes than I would like to do, but I already
localized the source line where the check is done. I don't think it would be
too hard to parse a configuration file or a header file to do this, but:
I just don't feel like hacking dpkg yet, it's too difficult for me (I am not
very experienced in C programming, although in programming in general and I
know the language). The dpkg has a lot of internal structures and procedures
(for example for error recovery), which are far beyond my knowledge of it.

I think we need to addresse this isues (especially because the hurd will
have binary compatibility with Linux, and we will be able to use i386
packages!), but it goes beyond my changes for the Hurd architecture.

Now to the building. Wouldn't building sparc packages on the ultrasparc be
just "cross compiling"? Then my proposal would already cover that. You would
make dpkg (or a wrapper) report the correct values for target and build
architectures and os's, and you should be done.

If I misunderstood you, let me know. 

> Also, I have a question about Debian HURD.  What are you going to do
> about filesystem layout?  Most of our packages configure and install
> files according the Linux Filesystem Standard, but it is my
> understanding that the HURD proposes to use a vastly different
> (flatter) filesystem layout.  Is Debian HURD going to match Debian
> Linux or other HURD systems?  Will you have to change every package?

Well, the Hurd will have the feature (or has it already, dunno), to mount
several filesystems in the same place (while under Linux one mount target
hides the underlying filesystem), so the conventional split in root and /usr
is not necessary on the Hurd (you can split your data over multiple
partitions without that). At least this is how I understood it.

Therefore, we have a link /usr -> /. This is the only thing we changed. We
try not to change the Debian packages. This way, we get the best of both
worlds (until we get the first overrides problems :)

Debian GNU/Hurd will look the same as Linux. Not 100%, but 95%. Later we can
see if the Hurd's features can be exploited in a better way.


"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."        Debian GNU/Linux        finger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann                   http://www.debian.org    master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de                        for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/       PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

Reply to: