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

Re: Multiarch, policy and cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> 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

I meant the short name (like "amd64" or "kfreebsd-i386"), as multiarch paths
use a longer string ("i386-linux-gnu" or "x86_64-kfreebsd-gnu").

Of course, the long name being short would be fine, too.

> 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).

Sounds good.

> Goswin, I take it you're advocating building _win32.deb packages (or
> something similar) - is that correct?

An interesting idea.

Not sure if it gets us anything in the short term, though.  There would be
problems with having to set up apt configuration for that arch, and arch:all
handles it adequately.  Long-term, it can be good to have all binary code
labelled accordingly to architecture it belongs to.

I'd ask the dpkg guys and ftpmasters first.

> 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?

Currently not but it's already in a better shape than openbios-{ppc,sparc}
which claim to be arch:all yet FTBFS on any architecture other than powerpc
or sparc.

Happy $holiday!
1KB		// Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
		//	Never attribute to stupidity what can be
		//	adequately explained by malice.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: