Hi, On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 06:23:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 10 April 2003 16:43, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:33:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > > > > > # echo x86-64 >> /etc/dpkg/legal-archs > > > # dpkg -i libgtk2-2.0-1_i386.deb > > > # dpkg -i lib64gtk2-2.0-1_x8664.deb > > > > 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 > > These two proposals have a significant difference. The first one > needs more changes to the individual library packages because it > changes not only the file names but also the package names. I'm > not sure how to best handle dependencies on this. Simple: explicitly. I don't think it'd be a good idea to allow 32-bit apps to link to 64-bit libraries and vice versa. How would you layout the (shared) address space? Handling all cases would become a mess quickly. You do want to allow both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of libraries to be installed, for which you need different package names; you want to avoid adding fields to a package's "primary key", so that the dependency tree assmebly mechanisms can be left as they are. > The second proposal would mean that dpkg will have to be changed > so it can install the same package for both x8664 and {i386,i686} > at the same time, which could prove difficult. The dependencies > here can basically stay the same (e.g. ssh will continue to > depend on libssl0.9.6 even on 64 bit), but dpkg and apt will have > to know about an additional dimension concerning dependencies, e.g.: That is exactly what Wichert wanted to avoid. I'm sorry, you probably got this idea because of a most unfortunate typo of mine in the last .deb I mentioned; I meant lib64ssl0.9.6-0.9.6c-2_x8664.deb there. There are two distinct issues I wanted to illustrate: 1. different package name (for 64 bits), different architecture, more than one architecture allowed by dkpg: allows 32-bit and 64-bit versions of packages to coexist; allows (64-bit) machines to install packages from compatible (32-bit) architectures. This was Wichert's idea. 2. same package name, different "architecture", more than one architecture allowed by dpkg: solves CPU optimized libraries in a transparent way; no changes to dependencies necessary. This is what Wichert's suggested extension to dpkg would allow when using the same package name. Hope it's clear now. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
pgpEKvXwn6hs9.pgp
Description: PGP signature