On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Ove Kaaven wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >Wow. No, definitely not. If the package can't be built on amd64, I'm not > >ok with shipping binary blobs that get unpacked this way.
> >What are the difficulties with building 32-bit wine on amd64? > There are not enough 32-bit libs on amd64 to satisfy all of Wine's core > build dependencies. For example, it needs libicu36 for proper i18n > support. Since ICU gets statically linked into Wine, a "binary blob" > built on i386 can have i18n support on amd64 even though libicu36 does > not otherwise exist in 32-bit form on amd64. > I'm also concerned that a few X11-related libraries do not have .so > symlinks in ia32-libs. For example, libXmu.so.6 exists there, but > libXmu.so doesn't, which would make linking against it impossible if it > was built on amd64, even though it's there at runtime. Ok, I see how these would be problems. Unfortunately, I still don't think this justifies shipping an executable in the diff. It's a shame that multiarch didn't come together in time for etch, but that's life. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
