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

Bug#540646: [libwine-unstable] wine.bin cannot find libwine.so.1



On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:13:42PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno skrev:
> > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 10:21:05PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> >> Aurelien Jarno skrev:
> >>> biarch packages should not use the multiarch path, otherwise the
> >>> transition to multiarch would be a nightmare.
> >> So how do you propose I multiarchify Wine (and make it ia32-apt-get-able
> >> while I'm at it) without using multiarch paths?
> > 
> > You can use the multiarch paths, but only with the path corresponding to
> > the architecture of the .deb that is:
> > - /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu on i386
> > - /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu on amd64
> > - etc.
> 
> That won't help. Even if it had made any sense to put 32-bit libraries
> into /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu, I've done these changes for a reason.
> For Win64 support, I need a path to place the 32-bit Wine libraries as
> well as a path to place the 64-bit Wine libraries, simultaneously and
> nonconflicting. Preferably paths that ld.so will also actually search.
> It turns out that using different library paths in the i386 and amd64
> build (/usr/lib on i386 vs /usr/lib32 on amd64) is going to break under
> the likes of ia32-apt-get (and, of course, under real multiarch) since
> the correct path must be compiled into libwine, and the only path I know
> that is supposed to work the same on i386 and amd64 for holding 32-bit
> libraries is /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu.

ia32-apt-get is gone, so I am not sure trying to support it is a good
idea.

> Hence I've multiarchified Wine, and as a temporary measure until real
> multiarch is here, I still build amd64 packages with i386 content
> inside. Once multiarch is here, and the user can install the i386
> packages directly, *then* I'll switch the build system to only build the
> 64-bit content into the amd64 packages, and make it the user's
> responsibility to coinstall the 32-bit and 64-bit packages. (And try to

How are you going to handle this transition then? With the current
situation, wine-unstable will provide the same file in the i386 package
and the amd64 package (as the amd64 one already provide
/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu), so you will have to play with
cross-architectures conflicts.

> avoid holding up any transitions.) Until that's possible, I need a way
> to ship 32-bit and 64-bit libraries from the same packages, making the
> package conform to the upcoming multiarch stuff seemed like a reasonable
> solution, and de-multiarching the package (and be back at square one)
> again doesn't really seem appealing...
> 

Don't put the libraries not conforming to the architecture of the
package in the multiarch path. You can chose /usr/lib32 or an other
path providing you add it to /etc/ld.so.conf.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net



Reply to: