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

Re: Help: Strange 64bit issue

Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
>> With these fixes it still did not build on my system. I needed to change
>> the Build-Depends on lib64z1-dev into zlib1g-dev to get it to build in a
>> clean pbuilder chroot.
> Well, I guess that lib64z1-dev will not exist for amd64 and that this
> whole mess is just caused by the multiarch stuff.  It's the first time
> that I have to deal with this and I have the impression that I try to
> add just problems with no real profit for the user of the program.
> Probably I should just exclude the -m64 switch when building for i386
> and everything will work fine.

Actually you sort of must. You can build two packages, one foo
and one foo-amd64 or libfoo and lib64foo if that is worth it. The
program should be available for pure 32bit systems in Debian i386 and
the 64bit flavour would be a bonus for those that run a 64bit kernel.

So think about it. Will a 64bit binary have any benefits that warants
the extra complexity of building and maintaining biarch packaging?

> BTW, how could I specify arch dependant Build-Depends (in case some
> hint might reveal a multiarch solution)?

Build-Depends: gcc-multilib, zlib1g-dev, lib64z1-dev [i386], ...

>> I cannot reproduce this on my amd64 machine. With the change mentioned
>> above it builds fine and I'm able to run /usr/bin/maq on both lenny and
>> sid. Some output:
> I expect this in 64bit machines - but Charles had problems on hie PowerPC
> as well ...

ldd runs the ld.so to get the libraries. That is bascially equivalent
to executing the binary and needs the full cpu and kernel support for
the binary format. So if you have a 32bit kernel you won't be able to
ldd a 64bit binary. Doesn't matter if it is amd64, sparc64, ppc64, ...

> Kind regards
>         Andreas.


Reply to: