Re: [Multiarch-devel] cross-architecture conflicts or equivalent for libc packages
Hi!
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 15:56:14 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>, 2014-05-19, 13:28:
> > > So following your way, it would be exactly the same for libc6:sparc.
> > >
> > > libc6-i386 also provides /lib/ld-linux.so.2. It should be
> > > co-installable with libc6:i386, but libc6:sparc should not be
> > > co-installable with libc6:i386 or libc6-i386.
> >
> > Oh, right. Couldn't the biarch packages die already? :)
>
> Unfortunately, as long as we keep GCC, we will need them, even if they
> are a pain.
Actually, why? I guess I might be missing something obvious, but even
if GCC wants to preserve the bi/triarch stuff (which I think is a bad
idea), why does glibc need to keep them in the current form as well?
Couldn't they be switched to empty packages depending on the actual
packages from the other arch, using either cross-arch dependencies or
the arch-annotated provides or similar? Or alternatively be switched
to native packages, or be simply provided by the native package,
similar to how the ia32-libs stuff got transitioned?
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: