|
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 05:23:52 IST Kevin Kofler wrote: > FHS multilib is designed only for binaries that can be natively executed, > where there is a clear, fixed preference on one architecture over another. > (If you can run both i686 and x86_64 binaries, you automatically want the > x86_64 one in case of conflicts.) Debian multiarch attempts to support use > cases that fail that assumption hardcoded deep into RPM and into Fedora > packaging practices.
Correct.
> Those use cases are much better served by full GNU sysroots (/usr/target, not /usr/lib/target).
Incorrect. As I mentioned in another thread, sysroot force you to place your libraries under the sysroot. IFF all you build are end applications, multiarch has no advantage over sysroot, BUT...
If someone use sysroot and need to develop many libraries, they: * Either need to move the built libraries under the sysroot so the cross-compiler will link applications with them. * Or (as you suggested elsewhere), build them twice: first for the target device and than (with sysroot prefix) for the sysroot.
Both alternatives are far worse than the nice multiarch solution which is building once and use the same binary package both on the target device and for your cross-compiling.
To set the record straight: * Multiarch is paradigm shift and maybe Fedora use-cases doesn't warrant going this last-mile. * But claiming multilib is "better" than multiarch is simply wrong: multiarch solve the general case, while multilib solve only the specific case you described. (both archs are executable but one is prefered).
Bye,
-- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 oron@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov
|
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
