On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 01:56:24PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 11:53:35PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> >One solution for this would be to ship the optimized library in the same
> >package as the default library. Now this is not acceptable for embedded
> >systems as they might not need that library and can't remove it. This is
> >even more problematic if we need to add more optimized libraries. I guess
> >this might be the case for arm64 as there are many new extensions in the
> >pipe.
> ACK. It's a problem to ship the different things in separate
> packages. If it's really a problem for smaller systems to have all the
> variants because of size, is there maybe another way to do things? How
> about keeping the existing libc and have an extra package
> ("libc-optimised") with all the optimised versions *and* the basic
> version, and have it provide/replace/conflict libc6?

What Noah mentioned for a similar proposal also applies here:

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 02:45:41PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> I don't know how well dpkg would cope with transitioning
> between providers, which seems like the riskiest side of this kind of
> thing.

I'd guess you could make this an installation-only change with
a few hacks here and there, but once you think that through
with all the followup-hacks required it doesn't sound like
a good idea.


Reply via email to