[crux64] multilib vs. soft dependencies

Johannes Winkelmann jw at smts.ch
Wed Jun 25 06:15:20 UTC 2008

Hi Lucas,

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:09:31 +1000, Lucas Hazel wrote:
> Some configure scripts automatically detect the presence of libraries,
> on a single library system this isn't a problem. However, when building
> 32bit support libraries on a mixed 32/64bit system the 64bit libraries
> get detected, but not tested by the configure script, only to fail
> during the linking process.
Interesting problem. From your script it seems that if the compat port
of that soft dependency is installed, it will work again, did I read
that correctly?
Would it be a pkg-config problem then, or how is the wrong library
detected by configure?

I'd like to look at one of these to get a better idea, is cups a good

> It is not feasible to add all soft deps to the compat32 Pkgfile so
> these need to be detected. Rather than let these fail and let the user
> figure it out, I've come up with a solution, but I'm not sure how it
> would bode with with CRUX philosophy.
Would it also be possible to disable the soft dependencies explicitely?
I think you mentioned something like this for libxslt. Or the other way
around, adding the compat32 ports as hard dependencies.

Both are just workarounds, though, but depending on the number of ports
we'll end up with in compat32 could also be feasible.

> As I said, I'm not sure if this sits will with the CRUX way of doing
> things, such as enforcing dependencies. But it's a necessary evil to
> get compat32 ports to compile cleanly. That or we can let the end user
> figure out the soft deps on their own.
One thing I'm not sure yet is how many compat port we will end up in the
long run, i.e. whether it's okay to cover to typical use cases, or
whether we need more and more over time since users want more ports.

If the compat ports are an small set, then I think it could be okay to
add a special solution, especially since I still hope that at some point
in time we'll be able to drop the compat ports altogether, although that
may take some years... I'll have to think a bit longer about the way you
implemented it (lack of coffee and such).

The one thing I'd like to avoid is that the method as is is picked up by
other packagers to run random scripts in Pkgfiles, because they see it
in our ports (you know, like running pre-install from there).

> I'm not sure how interested the rest of you are in multilib, but I'm
> not really interested in using a 64bit only system on my home desktop.
> I need to watch youtube videos and I need to be able to play GTA when
> the world is getting me down :)
Heh. I'm pretty sure that the majority of our users today will have some
32-bit applications they want to run, so at this point multilib seems
favourable to me. As mentioned I hope that we can go pure 64 at some
point in time, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Thanks, Johannes
Johannes Winkelmann              mailto:jw at smts.ch
Zurich, Switzerland              http://jw.smts.ch

More information about the crux64 mailing list