On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 04:03:14PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > If you upload a binutils-mipsel package to the archive that's arch: any > > (or arch: !mipsel), that means the autobuilders will try to build it on > > all other architectures -- including m68k and arm, even though no one in > > their right mind would use an m68k or arm machine to build binaries for > > mipsel. ;) > You'd be surprised...I've actually had a cross-compiler on my m68k for > another (different) m68k target. Sounds dumb, but it was necessary at the > time (and took FOREVER to build initially). Oh, but I've already automatically disqualified /you/ for failing the 'right mind' criterion. ;) > > Uploading cross-building packages that are > > arch: i386 powerpc sparc alpha hppa ia64 s390 > > might be a better idea -- /if/ someone wanted to maintain them. And if > > things don't crash&burn now when going between 32 & 64 bit > > architectures, like they did last time I tried to build a > > cross-compiler for alpha->anything. > That is a good idea, but bear in mind that embedded targetted toolchains > may be better compiled even on the slowest archs (you never know who may > want one or why). Certainly. It seems to me that these issues would need to be sorted out on a per-target basis by whoever opts to maintain those packages. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp_aFYi2bEKm.pgp
Description: PGP signature