* Steve Langasek ([email protected]) [110223 23:29]: > Ah, I don't know the details; I take this as gospel from the GCC maintainers > that There Are Differences. Perhaps the differences are only optimization > rather than compatibility; but regardless, given that most distros use > i586-linux-gnu or i686-linux-gnu as their toolchain triplet, i486-linux-gnu > is an odd bird to propose to standardize on.
AFAIUI, we need the atomic locking the i386 and some early i486 don't have, we need an co-processor that not all i486 have (but that's an kernel issue - the math emulation code is instant root exploitable, and therefor not part of the kernel code), and that's it. However, we optimize for i586 IIRC. > > [1] As you said pre-depends are messy but the safe bet. It would be best if > > we could somehow ensure that libc6 is upgraded first and that everything > > needed for the unpack is still there at that point (i.e. some liberal > > use of pre-depends somewhere in just the base set instead of > > everywhere). > > Ok. I think that's certainly going to be more manageable than trying to add > pre-depends to everything, anyway. Any concerns about bumping the > dependency for all libraries via dpkg-shlibdeps? Yes, I don't like libary bumps, because that's annoying if we need backports of all packages just to make dpkg happy (and the other package would still work, but just dpkg would complain). But well, maybe still the best. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
