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

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

Hi Steve,

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:44:33 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > Unfortunately this appears to go against policy 9.1.1, which forbids
> > packages installing files into triplet-based directories under /usr/lib
> > other than /usr/lib/$(dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH). Since the
> > files I'm thinking of aren't usable on any Debian architecture, they're
> > provided as "Architecture: all" packages and don't have a corresponding
> > Would it be acceptable to introduce an exception to policy allowing this?
> > Something along the lines of 
> >         An exception is granted for `Architecture: all' packages
> > containing libraries targeting platforms for which there is no Debian
> >         architecture. Such packages may use their traditional triplet as
> >         recognised by binutils and gcc.
> The current wording is quite deliberate in only allowing the use of these
> directories by packages of the given architecture, because one of the ideas
> to be explored in the future is introducing partial architectures for things
> like w64-mingw32 (or sparc64, or armv7+neon, or amd64+sse4) that aren't
> self-hosting but that it's interesting to build a subset of packages for
> (mostly libraries).

Ah, that's all the information I was missing. If there's a plan (or at
least the beginning of a plan) that's great, I'll follow along when the time

> So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time being;
> I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional cross-compiler
> directories and stay away from the multiarch directories until we have more
> practical experience with multiarch under our belts and can make some
> educated decisions about how we want this to all fit together.


Would it make any sense then to add an exception for traditional
cross-compiler directories, or should cross-compiling library packages simply
continue using lintian overrides?

One last question: without considering multiarch, what is the situation
regarding headers? Is the proposal in http://bugs.debian.org/542865 still the
intended approach, or is there another solution?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: