Re: x32 “half”arrived… now what?
Am 11.06.2013 16:09, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Daniel Schepler <dschepler <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> (Sorry about the lack of threading... for some reason I'm unable to find
> the
>> links to download mbox archives for replying to the messages.)
>
> https://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/contrib/hosted/tg/getarticle?rev=HEAD
>
> Just call that with either the Message-ID sans <>, or the GMane group
> and article number (separated with / like in URIs from GMane also works),
> and it’ll append to the unix-format mailbox in ~/mail/x which you can
> just reply to with Pine.
>
>> In response to Adam's comments about debootstrap not working because
> findutils
>> FTBFS: Yes, I'm aware of that, and for now you have to include "unreleased"
> as
>
> Well, that’s normal for Debian-Ports, nothing to apologise for.
>
>> For the reason we still have multilib packages instead of relying on
>> multiarch, see the thread starting at
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00692.html . (The one good
>> argument there IMO is that dropping libc6-i386 in favor of libc6:i386 could
>> cause difficulties autobuilding gcc-multilib when e.g. libgcc1:i386 and
>
> Why is gcc built multi-lib anyway?
because developers expect to work it. there is a lot of code which just uses
-m32/-m64 which should not deliberately broken.
> I see *no* benefit there that wouldn’t also be possible with Multi-Arch
> on the users’ system or is discriminatory (e.g. why should gdb:amd64
> support natively debugging i386 binaries but not e.g. armhf binaries).
>
> I never understood multilib and still wonder why it’s around. Maybe
> there’s a good reason, but other than a desire to keep it, I’ve missed
> anything about that yet…
Multi-Arch isn't there yet. And even if it is, the multilib builds should be
kept for some more releases. There is a lot to do on the Debian side, and on
the upstream side. So maybe it helps your understanding to get the required
patches upstream to get multilib working with a multiarch setup.
> On the contrary, i386 sid users’ systems now end up with this:
>
> -rw------- 1 root root 159744 Jun 6 10:23 core
>
> /core: ELF 32-bit LSB core file x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), SVR4-style, from
> '/libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2'
>
> This file is generated quite often, along with the aforementioned
> kernel messages. I think this is not acceptable.
but now this would be discriminatory, you get these for other architectures as
well. just set up a cross build environment.
Matthias
Reply to: