Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Cyril Brulebois (06/09/2011): > Can we give dpkg more exposure than “build from git”? It's been 2+ > months already since that announcement and one cannot really test > “Multiarch in Debian unstable” as written in the subject. It's been even more time now, can we please ge

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Can we give dpkg more exposure than “build from git”? It's been 2+ > > months already since that announcement and one cannot really test > > “Multia

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

; > Daring users can build this version of dpkg from source and configure it for > use with multiarch by creating a file /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch with > "foreign-architecture $arch" lines. Can we give dpkg more exposure than “build from git”? It's been 2+ months alrea

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Steve Langasek writes: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:53:26AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: >> But for now, the resume is that we put it into the sysadmin’s hand to >> install nss packages for all architectures he thinks his users want to >> run binaries on? > > Yes, that's the only option I see

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Brian May writes: > On 7 July 2011 11:44, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Couldn't you leave the *.so links where they are right now and only >> move the actual shared libraries?  Then packages that are using >> heimdal-multidev wouldn't need to change anything. > You mean leave the links in /usr/lib/he

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 7 July 2011 11:44, Russ Allbery wrote: > Couldn't you leave the *.so links where they are right now and only move > the actual shared libraries?  Then packages that are using > heimdal-multidev wouldn't need to change anything. You mean leave the links in /usr/lib/heimdal/*.so? Won't this bre

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Brian May writes: > I have converted Heimdal. Correctly I hope! Unfortunately, by uploading > this I will cause short term breakage to other packages. e.g libpam-krb5 > debian/rules has: > LDFLAGS=-L/usr/lib/heimdal > If I got this right it now needs to be changed to: > LDFLAGS=-L/usr/lib/$(DE

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 27 June 2011 20:54, Steve Langasek wrote: > Next steps for maintainers > == > > If you are a maintainer of a shared library package, you can convert it to > multiarch today following the instructions in the Debian wiki: > >  http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementatio

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Den 28. juni 2011 19:56, skrev Joachim Breitner: > I tend to agree with Bernhard that it would be nice if it were made easy > for the user (e.g. a user on amd64 who runs some application in wine and > is surprised that the foo.local addresses stop working). Actually, I think the current status quo

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 12:48:39AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 29.06.2011 00:39, schrieb Michael Biebl: > > Am 28.06.2011 19:56, schrieb Joachim Breitner: > >>> The only nss modules outside of eglibc that *are* available in biarch > >>> today > >>> are nss_ldap, nss_mdns*, nss_myhostname, an

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:53:26AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > But for now, the resume is that we put it into the sysadmin’s hand to > install nss packages for all architectures he thinks his users want to > run binaries on? Yes, that's the only option I see at present. -- Steve Langasek

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Am 29.06.2011 00:39, schrieb Michael Biebl: > Hi, > > Am 28.06.2011 19:56, schrieb Joachim Breitner: >>> The only nss modules outside of eglibc that *are* available in biarch today >>> are nss_ldap, nss_mdns*, nss_myhostname, and nss_extrausers. >> >> nss_gw_name would be if the depedency libnl ha

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 29/06/2011 09:53, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 28.06.2011, 23:22 +0100 schrieb Steve Langasek: >> I agree it would be nice, but this seems to map to the (long unsolved) >> problem of conditional depends - where you want A to pull in B only if C is >> also installed. If yo

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 28.06.2011, 23:22 +0100 schrieb Steve Langasek: > I agree it would be nice, but this seems to map to the (long unsolved) > problem of conditional depends - where you want A to pull in B only if C is > also installed. If you solve that, you've got the NSS module question > sol

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hi, Am 28.06.2011 19:56, schrieb Joachim Breitner: >> The only nss modules outside of eglibc that *are* available in biarch today >> are nss_ldap, nss_mdns*, nss_myhostname, and nss_extrausers. > > nss_gw_name would be if the depedency libnl had multilibs support. I'll be happy to take patches f

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:56:42PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > libnss-myhostname and libnss-extrausers ship the biarch versions of the > > module in the same package. libnss_mdns builds a separate lib32nss-mdns > > biarch package, and biarch libnss_ldap is only available in ia32-libs. So

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 28.06.2011, 15:32 +0100 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > No special handling has been proposed for nss modules beyond > > > that - though this is already a substantial improvement over the status > > > quo, > > > where about half our nss modules have biarch versions available an

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:19:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Steve Langasek [110628 00:36]: > > > Is there anything for nss plugins yet? As plugins for libc one needs to > > > make sure that if it is installed, it is installed for all installed > > > libcs. > > > With bi-arch/multilib on

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 2011-06-28 10:34:14 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:40:03AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 16:20:23 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > So this: > > > > So it should be a matter of changing that to print this instead on > > > > Debian > > > > mul

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 2011-06-28 09:54:34 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:05:05AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-11/msg00341.html > > > > This particular issue will not occur with multiarch, because > > > /usr/lib/ will never be a symlink to /usr

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

* Steve Langasek [110628 00:36]: > > Is there anything for nss plugins yet? As plugins for libc one needs to > > make sure that if it is installed, it is installed for all installed libcs. > > With bi-arch/multilib one can get there by just having it compiled for all > > possible variants. Is ther

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Zitat von Steve Langasek : One question, though: How are build tools like CMake converted to use Multiarch directories for the installation rule? I don't have a generic recipe for converting cmake to install to the multiarch directory. If someone has one, please add it to

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:30:51AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2011-06-27 15:59:27 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > If by "fat binaries" you mean executables, > > No, I meant libraries (the term "fat binary" is used by the GMP library, > but is here restricted to x86 subarchs). > > > If by

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:47AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 11:54 +0100 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > Next steps for maintainers > > == > > > > If you are a maintainer of a shared library package, you can convert it to > > multiarch today fo

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:40:03AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 16:20:23 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > So this: > > > So it should be a matter of changing that to print this instead on Debian > > > multiarch: $ gcc -print-multi-os-directory > > > x86_64-linux-gnu > > > $

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

* Steve Langasek [110628 08:42]: > > On the downside, files which are the same would be duplicated, but since a > > vast majority of libraries use #ifdefs instead of modifying the files, the > > waste would be infinitessimally low. > > I don't know what this "vast majority of libraries" is. Most

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:05:05AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-11/msg00341.html > > This particular issue will not occur with multiarch, because /usr/lib/ > > will never be a symlink to /usr/lib in the canonical implementation. > There will be the sam

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hi, Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 11:54 +0100 schrieb Steve Langasek: > Next steps for maintainers > == > > If you are a maintainer of a shared library package, you can convert it to > multiarch today following the instructions in the Debian wiki: > > http://wiki.debian.or

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:44:36AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:54:53AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Multiarch handling of header files (/usr/include) will require > > more per-package attention, because architecture-dependent and > > architecture-independent header

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 16:20:23 schrieb Steve Langasek: > So this: > > So it should be a matter of changing that to print this instead on Debian > > multiarch: $ gcc -print-multi-os-directory > > x86_64-linux-gnu > > $ gcc -print-multi-os-directory -m32 > > i486-linux-gnu > > would definitely b

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 2011-06-27 15:59:27 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > If by "fat binaries" you mean executables, No, I meant libraries (the term "fat binary" is used by the GMP library, but is here restricted to x86 subarchs). > If by "fat binaries" you mean shared libraries, they could either go in > /usr/lib,

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 2011-06-27 15:42:47 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > How libraries are searched is not clear, but depending on how this > > is done, there may be compatibility issues when the user installs > > software in his home directory, in

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:54:53AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > Multiarch handling of header files (/usr/include) will require > more per-package attention, because architecture-dependent and > architecture-independent header files are currently mixed together in a > single directory and we proba

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 06:31:19PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Steve Langasek [110627 13:00]: > > http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation > > If you have any questions about the multiarchification of libraries, please > > don't hesitate to ask on debian-devel@lists.debian.org. >

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:19:53PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: [...] > Before the conversion of amd64 -m32 to i386, and sparc -m64 to sparc64, it > could keep using biarch paths for the time being but provide the correct > multiarch one when no -m is specified. > > Otherwise, it produces oh so use

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

* Steve Langasek [110627 13:00]: > http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation > > If you have any questions about the multiarchification of libraries, please > don't hesitate to ask on debian-devel@lists.debian.org. Is there anything for nss plugins yet? As plugins for libc one needs to ma

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 at 15:31:24 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Related to that, will Linux support fat binaries[*] one day? I doubt it; but multiarch doesn't make them any more problematic. > If this is possible, where should they be installed, and how > libraries would be searched in a consiste

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2011-06-27 11:54:53 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Work is ongoing to formulate a proper, distribution-neutral interface for > > querying the correct multiarch path for a system. In the meantime, if you > > are an upstream aff

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:06:10PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: > On 06/27/2011 01:54 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > currently the only authoritative way to get the multiarch path for a system > > is by calling dpkg-architecture, so many of these patches are not yet > > upstreamable; with the result th

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:16:41PM +, Hector Oron wrote: > 2011/6/27 Török Edwin : > > I think gcc already provides a way to find out the multiarch directory, > > so it should be only a matter of patching gcc. > > Please try not to confuse multiarch with multilibs. What multilib does is allow

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hi, On 2011-06-27 11:54:53 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > Work is ongoing to formulate a proper, distribution-neutral interface for > querying the correct multiarch path for a system. In the meantime, if you > are an upstream affected by this issue, or a maintainer of a package whose > upstream i

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

Hello, 2011/6/27 Török Edwin : > I think gcc already provides a way to find out the multiarch directory, so it > should be only a matter of patching gcc. Please try not to confuse multiarch with multilibs. There is also multiarch designation for sparc machines so they use STT_GNU_IFUNC functions

Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable

On 06/27/2011 01:54 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > currently the only authoritative way to get the multiarch path for a system > is by calling dpkg-architecture, so many of these patches are not yet > upstreamable; with the result that some upstream projects now have a hard > time building on Debian w