On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Guillem Jover wrote: [...] > In any case I think the multilib approach is bogus, and its support > should just end. A better solution, is to use an actual cross-toolchain, > or something I was planning on posting to debian-devel is to use some > kind of fake cross toolchain in the interim, internally using the > multilib support, and later on they could be switched to use the main > compiler with a different spec file, or simply replaced with an actual > proper cross-compiler.
I have a mild objection to that if the move to the cross-toolchain approach is going to be a Debian-specific 'quirk'. If every Linux distribution goes that way then that makes more sense. In any case it can probably be reasonably easily detected in configure.ac (hence the 'mild' qualifier). Another issue is that the cross-toolchain approach seems to contradict the multiarch specification somewhat: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec#The_future_of_bi-arch_packages | This means, in particular, that the gcc-multilib package must continue | to remain available on such architectures, along with biarch versions | of any libraries it depends on. The set of libraries is limited to | those built from gcc source, plus libc6-dev-i386 (or equivalent). The | gcc-multilib package is also relevant to third-party developers who | wish to be able to compile code using gcc -m32; while gcc -m32 could | also be implemented using multiarch packages, the existing multilib | solution already addresses this use case without the need for | additional design. I take this to mean that multiarch was not meant to phase out 'gcc -m32'. At least initially. -- Francois Gouget <fgou...@free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape around here somewhere... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
