Re: additions to dpkg-architecture
On Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, Volker Grabsch writes:
>On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > For example, suppose you support a new OS, such as the w32 platform.
>> > Currently, your only choice is "w32-i386", which means that you must
>> > use an i486-mingw32msvc Compiler. However, for a w32 system a i486
>> > compile doesn't make a lot of sense. Since those systems (except very
>> > old Windows versions) need at least a Pentium, it is reasonable to
>> > compile such a distribution at least for i586, not i486.
>>
>> The only sensible choice would be w32, w32-i486 or w32-i586. Nothing
>> dictates the use of -i386 in a new architecture name.
>
>If that was true, you would shorten die "linux-i386" Debian architecture
>with "linux" instead of "i386". In fact, it's the "linux-" or "gnu-"
>which can be left, not the "i386".
Actually, the 'linux-' part isn't really optional either... because 'linux' really
means 'glibc'. You typically need a different toolchain to link against, say, uclibc.
I'll say again here more briefly what I sent to the originator of this thread
privately:
There are machines with different arch's that are compatible (eg. i[356]86), and
there are machines with the same arch that aren't compatible (eg. built vs uclibc
or with -msoftfloat or chips like ARM that have big/little endian 'switches')
So: it's a mess, and more power to ya if you want to try and figure it out.
--pj
Reply to: