On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 04:43:57PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:33:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > [SNIP] > > So basically, I don't think this is a very good idea. However I think we > > can solve it differently in a much simpler way: > > > > * modify dpkg (already planned) to allow it to install packages from > > different architectures on a system where it makes sense > > * change the naming of the libraries, for example by adding '64' to the > > 64bit version of a library > > > > That way you could do something like: > > > > # echo x86-64 >> /etc/dpkg/legal-archs > > # dpkg -i libgtk2-2.0-1_i386.deb > > # dpkg -i lib64gtk2-2.0-1_x8664.deb > > To my untrained eye, this seems an excellent and very general solution. > > As a slight but positive side effect, it also seems to open the way to > per-CPU optimized library versions; if you have a 686, you add 686 (or > 686-cmov) to /etc/dpkg/legal-archs, and can install either > > libssl0.9.6-0.9.6c-2_i386.deb or > libssl0.9.6-0.9.6c-2_i686.deb; > > on a x86-64 you'd have the choice between those same two plus > > libssl0.9.6-0.9.6c-2_x8664.deb
Please note the wiggy> * change the naming of the libraries, for example by adding '64' to wiggy> the 64bit version of a library Your above examples all have the same package name, just for a different architecture. AFAICT, this is exactly what Wichert wanted to avoid. Michael