Re: Debian Packages compiled with PGCC
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 02:41:03PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> How about a simple solution? binary-i686 or somthing like that. This
> was actually discussed on the devel list fairly recently. However, it
> got brushed off as something that should be done when the directory
> structure on the FTP (and HTTP now...) servers is reorganized for dpkg
> 2.0. I guess there are some complications in doing this with the
> current directory structure, though I don't understand what they are.
> I figure that they could have the important processor-intensive
> packages actually recompiled with PGCC and the rest of the things in
> binary-i686 would just be links to the packages in binary-i386.
>
> As a side note, has anyone gotten PGCC to install _cleanly_? I got it
> functioning by copying files over from the expanded tarball...but it
> wasn't quite right. The --tell-gcc-lib (or something like that)
> option reported libgcc.a instead of the full path in
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586... which messed up make-kpkg. Also, it had an
> inability to find stddef.h and stdarg.h. As far as converting the rpm
> with alien...that just didn't work well at all. It still installed
> itself in the /opt directory!?!
>
> Eric.
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> > Ben Collins <bmc@it.larc.nasa.gov> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:51:57AM +0100, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> > > > recommended) with PGCC. The minority who have a 386/486 now can't probably use
> > > > these software because their CPU is too slow and if they want, they could use
> > > > the src to compile the softs on them own ?
> > >
> > > The whole ideal of Linux is to be able to run on those old 386/486
> > > systems, and I think that minority is a lot bigger than you think. Just to
> > > point out, you think it's not good for them to run these packages on
> > > 386/486, but making them compile them (which is way more CPU intensive) is
> > > ok?
> >
> > I agree with Ben here - the binary distribution should remain _at least_
> > 486 compatible, if not 386 compatible.
> >
> > But, if we get source depends and automated builds working, then we could
> > do something like:
> > "apt-get compile-install <insert app here>"
> >
> > Obviously, you'd tell apt in it's config what your compiler is and what
> > flags to use.
> >
> > _That_ would be cool.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem with doing it in the current situation is
that you create another symlink farm. 99% of the packages will _not_ be compiled with PGCC,
so you have maybe 50 deb packages and 2350 links. In the future, if I can give APT priorities
in the source list, like "Get packages from binary-i386/stable/man. If the same package
exists in binary-i686/stable/man, then it gets precedence". That would be just as cool as
apt-get compile-install <pkg> as a previous poster said.
--
Stephen Pitts
smpitts@midsouth.rr.com
webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
Reply to: