ia32-libs

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Jerone Young 

| On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 08:47 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > ]] Jerone Young 
| > 
| > (Please respect the mail-followup-to and mail-copies-to headers)
| 
| Not sure what you mean by this ? I use Evolution, so I figure when I
| press reply to all it does this. Never really was a mail guru ;-).

«Please don't send me copies, I read the list».

| Oh I totally agree. I read the link (someone else pointed it out) and
| having lib/<arch>-<os> is sooo much better. I was very surprised on how
| well though out the proposed model was.

We spent a couple of years discussing this. :-)

| This is actually light years ahead of the model that Redhat & Suse took.
| Definitely allows for extremely easy emulation story as well as a
| migration story. You can have any arch or OS package install and if the
| kernel or emulation software will support execution of the binaries then
| installing them is easy as cake.

Exactly.  And it allows for crazy stuff like MIPS which has two 32 bit
and one 64 bit ABIs.

| Now with all the discussion and some really good papers .. the big
| question is how did to get this moving again after it has been sitting
| on the shelf for over 4 years ?

Last I heard, the problem was getting a patch into gcc which makes it
look in the right directories by default.  Apparently, binutils wasn't
the right place for it.

Once that's done, we either need support for removing bits of packages
when they are installed (so as to not conflict with native packages), or
we need to split out all the bits in /usr/share to its own arch: all
package.  Oh, and we need to write some patches to dpkg and apt as well
as frontends.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are