Re: Debian Packages compiled with PGCC
How about a simple solution? binary-i686 or somthing like that. This
was actually discussed on the devel list fairly recently. However, it
got brushed off as something that should be done when the directory
structure on the FTP (and HTTP now...) servers is reorganized for dpkg
2.0. I guess there are some complications in doing this with the
current directory structure, though I don't understand what they are.
I figure that they could have the important processor-intensive
packages actually recompiled with PGCC and the rest of the things in
binary-i686 would just be links to the packages in binary-i386.
As a side note, has anyone gotten PGCC to install _cleanly_? I got it
functioning by copying files over from the expanded tarball...but it
wasn't quite right. The --tell-gcc-lib (or something like that)
option reported libgcc.a instead of the full path in
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586... which messed up make-kpkg. Also, it had an
inability to find stddef.h and stdarg.h. As far as converting the rpm
with alien...that just didn't work well at all. It still installed
itself in the /opt directory!?!
Eric.
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> Ben Collins <bmc@it.larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:51:57AM +0100, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> > > recommended) with PGCC. The minority who have a 386/486 now can't probably use
> > > these software because their CPU is too slow and if they want, they could use
> > > the src to compile the softs on them own ?
> >
> > The whole ideal of Linux is to be able to run on those old 386/486
> > systems, and I think that minority is a lot bigger than you think. Just to
> > point out, you think it's not good for them to run these packages on
> > 386/486, but making them compile them (which is way more CPU intensive) is
> > ok?
>
> I agree with Ben here - the binary distribution should remain _at least_
> 486 compatible, if not 386 compatible.
>
> But, if we get source depends and automated builds working, then we could
> do something like:
> "apt-get compile-install <insert app here>"
>
> Obviously, you'd tell apt in it's config what your compiler is and what
> flags to use.
>
> _That_ would be cool.
Reply to: