On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:38:01AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > Except for things like possibly firmware, which AFAIR there seemed to > > > be consensus should be kept as arch:all for now (otherwise they'd > > > require Packages file for lots of architectures), the rest require > > > run-time support from libc. The problem with adding the arch from > > > the libc package is that's a chicken and egg situation. > > What libc support do you mean? All per-architecture executables should have > > dependencies on the libc package for their arch anyway, so I don't see how > > libc support really enters into this. > Yes, I meant them needing the dynamic linker and libc.so. So if we are > on arch:amd64, want to install pkga:i386, and libc:i386 is the one > doing the dpkg --add-architecture i386, then apt will not be able to > nicely present the package to the user before the user has installed > it. Hope this clarifies. Oh, ok. I had understood "the rest of the architectures" rather than "the rest of the packages" - thanks for the clarification. Yes, it would be a bootstrapping problem to have libc registering the architecture with dpkg. -- 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature