Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
>>>>> Kristoffer Rose writes:
KR> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>> Yes, there will be a certain degree of compatibility, even binary
>> compatibility. But, and this is a big but, we still need our own
>> kernel, translators, glibc, and some other low level stuff
>> (network, etc).
KR> Just to complicate things: we really should make it possible to
KR> have multi-platform installations. On alpha, for example, we
KR> have something called `em86' which permits us to use i386
KR> binaries. This requires, of course, that they `see' i386
KR> libraries etc.: only the kernel remains the alpha one for them...
This is exactly why I am arguing that Architecture should be
reimplemented in terms of virtual packages that correspond to
different ABIs, that we can use in the Depends field.
It would require some reworking of dinstall (for one), but it would
benefit a lot of things, and simplify dpkg's internals.
Gordon Matzigkeit <firstname.lastname@example.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)