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

Bug#197117: marked as done ([ARCH] dpkg support for /lib64 and /usr/lib64 locations on 64 bit platforms)



Your message dated Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:45:47 +0100
with message-id <1083091547.19948.66.camel@descent.netsplit.com>
and subject line Bug#197117: [ARCH] dpkg support for /lib64 and /usr/lib64 locations on 64 bit platforms
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at bugs) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jun 2003 05:13:36 +0000
>From GerhardTonn@gammatau.de Thu Jun 12 00:13:36 2003
Return-path: <GerhardTonn@gammatau.de>
Received: from moutvdom.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.249] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19QKP1-0001Nh-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:13:36 -0500
Received: from [212.227.126.223] (helo=mrvdomng.kundenserver.de)
	by moutvdom.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 19QKP1-0007Tc-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:13:35 +0200
Received: from [80.138.129.229] (helo=tau)
	by mrvdomng.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 19QKP1-0002ag-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:13:35 +0200
From: Gerhard Tonn <GerhardTonn@gammatau.de>
To: bugs@bugs.debian.org
Subject: dpkg support for /lib64 and /usr/lib64 locations on 64 bit platforms
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:21:04 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99]
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Cc: debian-x86-64@lists.debian.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <03061206210401.00755@tau>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Delivered-To: bugs@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
	tests=HAS_PACKAGE
	version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_10
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_10 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

Package: dpkg
Version:  1.10.10
Severity: wishlist

As discussed severel times on debian-devel, see for example 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg00700.html , 
x86-64, s390x and possibly other 64 bit architectures need to install their 
libraries to /lib64 and /usr/lib64 instead of /lib and /usr/lib. This makes 
it possible to install unchanged packages of the corresponding 32 bit 
architecture, i386 for x86-64 and s390 for s390x, concurrently with the 64 
bit packages.

In order to support this by dpkg, we need basically a means to specify a name 
for the 64 bit package and a name for a substitution variable for the package 
name to parameterize Depends and Provides information. The original proposal 
for two different package names came from Wichert 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg00782.html .
I have done a sample implementation for it by introducing two new keywords 
Package64 and Substvarname for debian/control. See 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x86-64/2003/debian-x86-64-200306/msg00005.html 
for details.

We need also a new dpkg feature that supports the concept of compatible 
architectures, e.g. x86-86 and i386, so that packages of both architectures 
can be installed concurrently. I haven't done a sample implementation yet.


Regards,
Gerhard

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 197117-done) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Apr 2004 18:45:46 +0000
>From scott@netsplit.com Tue Apr 27 11:45:46 2004
Return-path: <scott@netsplit.com>
Received: from populous.netsplit.com (mailgate.netsplit.com) [62.49.129.34] (qmailr)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BIXaT-0000fx-00; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:45:45 -0700
Received: (qmail 3800 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2004 18:45:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO descent.netsplit.com) (scott@62.49.129.40)
  by populous.netsplit.com with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 27 Apr 2004 18:45:42 -0000
Subject: Bug#197117: [ARCH] dpkg support for /lib64 and /usr/lib64
	locations on 64 bit platforms
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com>
To: Gerhard Tonn <GerhardTonn@gammatau.de>, 197117-done@bugs.debian.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-BFup98AlRXx3BB3KMn6X"
Message-Id: <1083091547.19948.66.camel@descent.netsplit.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.5.7 
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:45:47 +0100
Delivered-To: 197117-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1


--=-BFup98AlRXx3BB3KMn6X
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I do not think it is clear at all that this is the outright winner at
this stage; in fact, it seems to be that this has been abandoned in
favour of a different method.

I'm closing this, once the multi-arch folks have their working patches
they can open a wishlist bug with the right details.

Scott
--=20
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

--=-BFup98AlRXx3BB3KMn6X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAjqpZIexP3IStZ2wRAndwAKC1LHS5Ex4N3Wi/0aTBk723j1DRUQCgpuaT
4xQzmsWi879MjlUTJ9GOwlI=
=cXUd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-BFup98AlRXx3BB3KMn6X--



Reply to: