Re: Proposed Multilib Implementation Brainstorming

[Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>]

On 04/06/2011 01:47 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/4/5 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> 
> [...]
>>
>> Does this make sense to everyone, are there any questions/ objections/
>> concerns/ things I've missed?
> 
> I think most embedded systems would only use one lib. To take your
> lib/lib64 example:
> If I am developing for an embedded system I know whether it will run
> as 32 or 64 bit, so there is no need to have both.

What about the case of new 64bit hardware and legacy software that's
still 32bit?  This is a problem that embedded systems have and OE needs
to support

> multilib has its merits when it comes to supporting multiple hardware systems.
> However as in the embedded world one is typically targeting a specific
> hardware configuration.
> (actually I don't recall having seen requests for multilib on the ML
> before, although I could have missed it).

You missed it :)  Roman Khimov posted a very basic thing years ago for
dealing with the x86/x86_64 problem.

> Also I'm somewhat worried by the actual complexity this adds (to the
> build process and the recipes, and timewise probably also to the
> bootstrap process as additional packages have to be built).

I agree, we do need to be careful to make sure the non-multilib case
isn't made more difficult by all of this.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation