[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151117150650.GE18372@port70.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:06:53 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Support for multiarch/multilib
* Petr Hosek <phosek@...omium.org> [2015-11-17 06:15:20 +0000]:
> We're using musl in multiarch/multilib setup (i386/x86-64) and it works
> fine, except for header duplication. Given two architectures,
> i386-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu, I'd like to install the shared headers
> into /usr/include, and install bits (what is normally in include/bits) for
> each architecture into the respective subfolders
> /usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/bits and /usr/x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
multiarch should make it possible to support multiple abis
on the same host.. but currently that's not the case, there
are headers shared across abis.
$ARCH-linux-gnu is certainly not the right name for musl as
it conflicts with glibc.
> I can obviously achieve by copying/moving files after install, but I'd
> prefer to have the support for that scenario directly in the Makefile.
> Would you accept such patch?
>
> There are two possible ways to implements this I can think of: (1) add a
> separate targets such as install-arch-headers and install-generic-headers,
> or (2) define additional Makefile variable such as includebits which would
> be set to $(includedir)/bits by default but could be overridden when
> invoking make. Do you have strong preference for either of these solutions?
i personally prefer something with make variables so
make install does the right thing if i set my vars
properly. (i assume you need the same for /usr/lib.)
but i'm not sure if trying to support a particular
flavour of multi* is a good idea at this point.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
