Re: Multiarch, policy and cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:46:40PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I expect the multiarch paths to replace the 'traditional
> cross-compiling' paths in due course for all target architectures,
> including ones that aren't Debian-suported (i.e currently
> mingw-whatever-you-call-it, avr32, msp430), for both native use and
> cross-compiling. Steve will have to explain to me why we might want to
> use different paths for non-self-hosting arches. It seems to me that
> having one canonical place to look for arch-dependent files is good
> whether you want them for running or for (cross-)building.
It's not that non-self-hosting archs should be treated differently from
self-hosted archs, but that they should be treated the *same* including the
requirement that multiarch directories be reserved for packages of the
corresponding architecture... even if there is no support for such a
corresponding architecture in dpkg or in the archive. This future-proofs
the packages for the time being so that if at a later date we *do* add these
architectures to the archive as architectures, we don't end up with the
maintainers of all the base libraries having to add lots of "Conflicts:
libc6-msp430 [msp430]" style conflicts to ensure a smooth upgrade.
> But we do need to proceed carefully in order to get this right, and
> the cross-only arches are a little way down our list of issues :-)
Right. It may be nothing but wishful thinking to say that we might have an
msp430 partial architecture in the archive some time in the future and that
it will DTRT. But in the meantime I think it's best to take it slow and not
paint ourselves into any corners.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: