On 10/14/2011 02:34 PM, Tim Coote wrote:
On 14 Oct 2011, at 13:22, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 01:33 PM, Tim Coote wrote:
>> In principle, I'd have thought that this was possible, if where binaries need
to be run in the creation process the inputs/outputs are compatible between the
architectures and the mappings between which binaries to use are properly managed.
> The binaries are compatible, but only in the opposite direction, so you can (mostly)
run 32 bit binaries on 64 bit.
Are the inputs/outputs of the binaries compatible - I think that's all that's
needed. Clearly this could be a bit of a can of worms as arbitrary binaries can be run
from the kickstart. However, I just want to build minimal O/S and then use puppet to
configure the devices.
A part of installing a package (in a chroot) might be to run binaries
(found in the chroot). It might be possible to fix it up by running 32
bit binaries somehow, but I doubt that is feasible.
> You can use "setarch i686" on x86_64 to build 32 bit
images - not the other way around.
That's great. But not much use to me. Clearly, it's not a capability that's
going to come soon. At least I know where I stand.
"come soon"? 64 bit binaries requires a 64 bit kernel which requires a
64 bit cpu (or an emulator running on 32 bit). You can do that now if
you really want to. With 32 bit being so "last century" I doubt there
will ever by any changes in this area.