This is why I am somewhat against this method. Other systems use different architectures....
We use pkg-ver.m68kmint.rpm.
I would package complete different packages built for different architectures like..
pkg-ver.m68mint.rpm, pkg-ver.m5475mint.rpm, pkg-ver.m68060mint.rpm, etc. That way any incidental binaries will run on the platform. I would be ok with multilib if there was a common minimum but 68000 stuff can't run on coldfire without a software emulation which makes this approach broken to me.
But, we can also do a hybrid of this approach and create both setups.
Thanks,
Mark
On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Peter Slegg wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:48:40 , "m0n0" <ole@monochrom.net> wrote:
Am Do, 24.02.2011, 21:26 schrieb Peter Slegg:
So does the multi-arch "hack" only apply to the .a files ?
Right - what more do you want?
There is only one thing that I could think of: a auto-generated config.h
file ( or something like that, maybe types.h - whatever) which is
different between m68000 and coldfire.... - then you would need to take
further steps...
Sorry if it is a dumb question. I assumed that with the devel rpm
it is the .a files. Then I was thinking about the binaries in the main
libxml rpm, do these have to be mv'd to make each cpu version ?
/usr/bin/xmlcatalog
/usr/bin/xmllint
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/AUTHORS
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/ChangeLog
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/Copyright
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/NEWS
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/README
/usr/doc/libxml2-2.7.8/TODO
/usr/share/man/man1/xmlcatalog.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/xmllint.1.gz