On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:51:53 +0200, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:29:39PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > I would rather add a new architecture to dpkg for this. This does not > > mean that debian has to create a new port or that the packages have to > > stop being arch:all. But dpkg should know about it and be the one and > > only place packages query for the right multiarch triplet. Then you > > would use > > /usr/lib/$(dpkg-architecture -aw64-mingw32 -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH) > > when building your package. Problem solved. > > Sounds like a great idea to me! > > It would fix the inconsistency I mentioned in another branch of this thread. > > I'd use just "win32" and "win64" for short names of the architectures, since > we don't have i386-gcc, i386-clang and i386-tcc when all of them use glibc. > > Once it is hidden inside dpkg's bowels, the triplet might be even > i586-i686-w32-w64-w128-but-really-w32-klaatu-verata-nikto-mingw-w42. So if I understand things correctly that would mean using /usr/lib/win32 and /usr/lib/win64, regardless of the binutils/gcc triplet (which is fine as far as I'm concerned - all I'm wary of is changing the gcc triplet used upstream, see http://bugs.debian.org/622276 - obviously, Adam, you know about this, but others probably don't). Goswin, I take it you're advocating building _win32.deb packages (or something similar) - is that correct? I didn't even realise that would be possible without appropriate buildds... I know about “dpkg-buildpackage -a” or “pdebuild --architecture” for local rebuilds, but would rebuilding such a package be possible on the existing buildd network? Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature