Re: biarch gcc not built with 64-bit mode?
Should it be reasonable if we do next steps as to make whole project
less confusing and conflicting?
1. Grab debian unstable mirror as of now and put somewhere so everybody
can access it (I can host it if you like). And freeze its state for
now (with hope that it doesn't have havily broken dependancies). So
none of the packages would be updated from the main debian trunk till
some point and we have exact original packages and sources (now it is
not the case because some amd64 packages might not have original i386
packages available already anywhere I believe)
I've created a mirror from bart, arnd and alioths packages
alltogether and installed kinda working system (using of cause a bit of
handcrafting: adjusted /etc/ld.so.conf file, as well as link
/usr/bin/gcc -> /usr/local/gcc.bart). Also I've defined
/etc/apt/preferences file (was reported before on the list) so I give
preference to the old versioned packages from the amd64 distro before
fresh unstable packages.
List of packages I've installed so far
and their exact version is available from
http://www.onerussian.com/amd64/node10.packages
so can risk and try something like apt-get install `cat node10.packages`.
If you want I can put all the mirrors I've created available for public
and put sources.list I have to access them to make your life even
easier. The
2. Using already existing and kinda working hand crafted system
installed using old toolchain and other (bart, alioth) existing and
conflicting apt sources we can start rebuilding toolchain and other
packages using diff files from bart or arnd as the start point. Doing
this way we have a chance to be consistent.
3. After all basic packages are ported with all proper dependancies and
all necessary packages and Release and Packages files present we can
start maintaining them to catch up with the main debian trunk.
So far attempts to intermix steps 2 and 3 brought too much confusion
seems to me.
Does it sound reasonable???
--Yarik
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:52:29PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 15:49, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > To clear everything for me who is even more confused:
> > where did you get packages to install from? alioth repository? bart's
> > site? original chainkit?
> >
> > I've got them installed somehow over unstable debian though some
> > packages had to be removed but big deal is left :-)
>
> Well, that's the trick isn't it? The packages from alioth just don't
> work (for me). gcc-3.3 from alioth can't compile 64-bit binaries and in
> any case lib64gcc1 cannot be installed because of its libc6 dependency,
> which is unavailable. I installed the toolchain from packages taken off
> Bart's site and Arnd's site, which allowed me to build the kernel, then
> I immediately reverted to the unstable i386 versions.
>
> I'm getting lots of segfaults in bash and "bad address" libc problems,
> as mentioned in the bug report thread.
>
> -jwb
>
.-.
=------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User ^^-^^ [175555]
Key http://www.onerussian.com/gpg-yoh.asc
GPG fingerprint 3BB6 E124 0643 A615 6F00 6854 8D11 4563 75C0 24C8
Reply to: