On 11/21/2013 04:52 PM, Ted Gould wrote: > Hey all, > > There was a discussion a while back on IRC about executing binaries in fat > packages. After that I started a branch, but I just found it again, and > cleaned > it up. But I felt like we should probably make sure this is what we want > before > I go ahead and commit it. First here's the branch: > > > https://code.launchpad.net/~ted/upstart-app-launch/tracking-arch/+merge/196194 > > > What it does is adjust the PATH environment variable to first have an > architecture specific directory. This way anything that is specified in the > desktop file could have an architecture specific version that would be found > by > normal path expansion. That directory is: > > $(PACKAGE_DIR)/lib/$(ARCH TRIPLET)/bin/ > > > Does that still look good to everyone? > The branch uses dpkg-architecture, but that isn't available on the touch images. I think you can use 'dpkg --print-architecture' instead. Eg, using the emulator (yay!):
$ adb shell dpkg-architecture /bin/bash: dpkg-architecture: command not found $ adb shell dpkg --print-architecture armhf More importantly, I'm thinking this is probably not enough when considering compiled programs. Right now, for arch-dependent non-fat packages, .desktop files use '/usr/bin/qmlscene -I<relative_dir> someapp.qml. Eg: Exec=aa-exec-click -p com.ubuntu.developer.user.app_app_0.1 -- /usr/bin/qmlscene -I backend/modules app.qml Path=/opt/click.ubuntu.com/.click/users/username/com.ubuntu.developer.user.app Where will C++ extensions like this end up in fat packages? Should we be adjusting LD_LIBRARY_PATH in addition to PATH? -- Jamie Strandboge http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : ubuntu-appstore-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
