On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:40:29PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> it's available in the GCC packages for a while now. > > Sure, but there's a bunch more stuff needed. > sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Getting full x32 support is going to require more than just the compiler. > Well, there are less requirements for the C and C++ runtime libraries > (basically > glibc), but the D runtime library requires one more, zlib. I'm not sure what > you > are arguing here. I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use case for them it seems better to just not ship the multilib runtime for D and instead have people who want to build or run non-native D code use multiarch. That's where we want to get to anyway. > PS: I pinged about a) moving back zconf.h to /usr/include and b) running > dh_makeshlibs for the 64bit multilib variant. Any update on this? I saw your content free pings.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
