On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:03:09AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > IIRC this also occured to the ARM guys. > > The kernel parts support zero or one "compat format", and one > "native format", which depends on the compiler options used. > > i386 kernel: native=i386 compat=NONE > amd64 kernel: native=amd64 compat=i386 > sparc64 kernel: native=sparc64 compat=sparcv9 > armv7-eabi kernel: native=armv7-eabi compat=NONE > > (Turning off CONFIG_COMPAT in the kernel .config means compat is > never included.) >
Thanks for explaining. Aparently my kernel (the debian kernel packaged for yeeloong) has CONFIG_COMPAT enabled, but yet it does not seem compatible with 32 bit mipsel executables like iptables. ~$ grep COMPAT /boot/config-3.2.0-3-loongson-2f # CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK is not set CONFIG_BLOCK_COMPAT=y CONFIG_MIPS32_COMPAT=y CONFIG_COMPAT=y CONFIG_SYSVIPC_COMPAT=y CONFIG_COMPAT_NETLINK_MESSAGES=y CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROC_COMPAT=y CONFIG_I2C_COMPAT=y CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_COMPAT_24=y Do you mean this is a bug in the kernel instead of iptables ? > This meant that one cannot use a ARM OABI iptables binary. > [And there was no reason to continue using OABI anyway, > so that was simple.] > It will also mean that you will not be able to use a > x32-type iptables binary on amd64. (Hint, hint, ljlane) > > I suppose you may have a similar case with your mips environment > that you have a non-standard userspace. > So the analogy would be to build iptables 64 bits ? But I guess this won't work on some mipsel boxes. Would it be possible to have 2 binary packages in the mipsel debian archive, one with 32 bit binaries and one with 64 bit binaries, and select which one to install with dependency magic dependening on whether the current kernel is 32 or 64 bits ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
