Re: Wine MinGW system libraries
Le dim. 12 sept. 2021 à 13:44, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > Le dim. 12 sept. 2021 à 07:38, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Improve dpkg to support partial arch. I volonteer to implement none arch
> > > > but i am waiting from guillem here.
> > > >...
> > >
> > > There is also plenty of infrastructure on the buildd, archive and
> > > release team sides that would likely need changes for supporting
> > > anything like that.
> > >
> > > A multilib based approach might be more realistic for bookworm.
> > >
> > > What benefits would a "none arch" even bring compared to building
> > > binary-all packages?
> > > The ability to binNMU is the only one that comes into my mind.
> > we have at least 3 architectures that need uefi none arch...
> >
> > So we build three arch-all package with paterning name.
>
> I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to do.
>
> What release architecture would "none" packages be in the Debian
> archive, and on what buildds would they be built?
>
> Debian buildds are not cross-compiling packages for a different Debian
> architecture, a partial architecture would still require DSA-maintained
> buildds doing native building on this partial architecture.
I think you misunderstand:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/FreestandingArches
They are a full color gradiant between:
- freestanding arches pure cross compile without any depends except arch:all
- partial cross built arch
- partial arch
- full arch
I believe the first step to get partial cross built arch is to begin
by freestanding arch.
Bastien
> cu
> Adrian
Reply to: