ia32-libs [was: Bringing Wine into Main]

John Dong john.dong at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 12:59:42 GMT 2008

We really don't have the technology to mix-and-match 32-bit and 64-bit stuff
in our package manager. Building lib32* of everything is a good compromise

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Przemek Kulczycki <
przemekkulczycki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
> >> Moving Wine into Main (or whatever becomes of main with the archive
> >> reorganization) will require a fair amount of work.  Most of Wine's
> >> dependencies are already in main, but on amd64 Wine still requires
> >> ia32-libs for about 15 packages that don't have separate lib32 versions.
> >
> > There is at least the theoretical possibility to only offer wine for
> > i386 again, and provide a wrapper package on amd64 to set up an
> > appropriate i386 dchroot and install wine in it.
> >
> >> I'd like to work on Wine in Ubuntu full time, however as a first step to
> >> keep me busy I could easily spend a few months modifying these packages
> >> to work properly in 32 bit mode on amd64.  This is work that will have
> >> to be done eventually anyway, as 32 bit Windows applications are going
> >> to be around for a long time.
> >
> > I disagree here. Changing source packages to build lib32foo packages
> > on amd64 is a much better hack than the current ia32-libs package
> > (which is EBW, not maintained well, not updated for security fixes,
> > horribly brittle, and will make it to main only over my dead cold
> > body). But lib32foo is a hack as well, and it utterly complicates
> > packaging. I think the time for converting several dozen source
> > packages could actually be spent much better with working on proper
> > multiarch support (although this takes much more time).
> >
> > Having worked a bit on ia32-libs over the past years, I more and more
> > came to the conclusion that the concept is flawed, and that nowadays
> > people would be much better off with an i386 dchroot (with some tricks
> > like bind-mounting /home) which can be kept up to date with security
> > updates, and doesn't require constant intensive maintenance and source
> > package changes.
> >
> > WDYT?
> I'm wondering if we really need a full 64-bit OS and all applications at
> all.
> In [Open]Solaris, only the kernel and some apps are 64-bit, and the
> rest is still 32-bit because being 64-bit doesn't give them any
> advantage.
> I know it's out of scope of this discussion, but maybe instead of
> having a separate full 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Ubuntu we could
> try a Solaris way and make a one hybrid 64-bit/32-bit os?
> --
> ## Przemysław Kulczycki >><< Azrael Nightwalker ##
> # jabber: azrael[na]jabster.pl | tlen: azrael29a #
> ### www: http://reksio.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~azrael/<http://reksio.ftj.agh.edu.pl/%7Eazrael/>###
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20081217/3fa2c33f/attachment.htm 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list