On 07/01/17 22:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Lo! On 05.01.2017 17:03, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> [...]
> ## Advantages
>
> * Simplification of build-tree creation. We wouldn't have to maintain the lists
> and hacks that are required to make sure that multilib packages land in the
> correct repositories.
> [...]
Just wondering: Why don't we switch to a multilib/multiarch solution
similar to the one that Debian/Ubuntu uses? They put libs in directories
like /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu and /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
(https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec ). If we'd switch to a similar
solution a new (de facto) standard might evolve and in the end nobody
would have to deal with hacks any more, because all major distros would
put libs in the same directories. Iirc their model has benefits for
cross-compilation, too.
IMHO this is a much better idea. Also being closer to Debian means
less hacking required to build GCC (or at least, it's the same hacking
as Debian needs).
How's that? To build GCC on Debian needs an entire new configure
option that isn't needed at all on Fedora: --enable-multiarch
There's *more* hacking needed to build GCC on Debian. So yes, if we
copy them we'll need the same hacking as Debian needs, but that's not
less hacking than we have now.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
