Re: Dealing with two-abi architectures

"Wichmann, Mats D" <[email protected]> writes:

> In past discussions, the feeling has been that
> the lsbsi should be built consistent with
> what the Linux distributions are doing, and
> a separate build phase would build the libraries
> that support the "other ABI".  That is, the
> AMD64 lsbsi should be a 64-bit build using
> the current lsbsi model, and then an extra phase
> is done to produce ILP32 libraries. And the
> PPC64 build should be essentially the PPC32
> build (we think we could use the PPC32 lsbsi,
> but maybe prefer to build it in a PPC64 environment -
> open for discussion) and the extra phase builds
> the LP64 libraries.  I propose to ignore the
> Itanium issue at this time.

I would suggest the following:
- the 64-bit LSB SI is build on the 64-bit system
- the 32-bit LSB SI is build on the 32-bit system and then moved to
  the 64-bit system.

I don't think you need need to support building e.g. the i386 LSB SI
on AMD64 or IPF.  Don't make your life to hard ;-)

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, [email protected], http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/OenmOJpWPMJyoSYRAn6xAKCIv6cfa0nyh3mi95Zjp++oe+j1IQCfQJ1b
huyMYcs0GhMOeUMKaWrOFxg=
=zNW/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----