Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>]

I would like to see the Debian multiarch support but haven't quite
figured out how to implement it on a sourcemage system...

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch 

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/TheCaseForMultiarch

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/LibraryPathOverview

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook

On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 10:49 +0900, flux wrote:
> Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [12.01.12 01:51]:
> > There's a problem when trying to bootstrap GCC with multilib support.
> > Looks like it requires 32bit glibc... (why in the compiler!?). Am I
> > correct or missed something? I think it's a bug to not verify/rebuild
> > libc, but I'm not sure how to handle it...
> > 
> > Also, I noticed /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h is missing. For building
> > applications sometimes it's useful to be able to produce object files
> > even if you can't link... so I think we should "fix" glibc to install it
> > anyway...
> 
> We officially do not support multilib. Multilib is a very broken and
> hackish solution to migrating from 32-bit to 64-bit, and has actually
> done more harm to migration than good (it's actually encouraged app
> maintainers to not bother updating their software to be able to build on
> 64-bit, or to not provide 64-bit binaries in the case of binary-only).
> 
> 64-bit x86 is *NOT* the same architecture as 32-bit. Yes, there is
> backwards support, but the CPU goes into an entirely different state for
> this. If you want a 64-bit compiler that generates 32-bit output, you
> want a cross-compiler. So no, gcc should not be "fixed". Instead, you
> should either a) set up a 32-bit chroot environment with all 32-bit, or
> b) build a true cross-compiler toolchain in which the tools are built as
> 64-bit but all generate 32-bit.
> 
> People should really start thinking of 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86 as
> being as similar to each other as MIPS-32 is to ARM 32-bit. It would
> help avoid confusions such as this.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part