Re: Long-term mass bug filing for crossbuild support
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:18:12AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> Actually, /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz differs from
> that by specifying $(confflags) instead of SYSTEM and using 'export'. I
> don't see what benefit arises from the only other difference, ?=
> instead of =. When cross-compiling, it isn't sensible to allow the
> value to be overridden elsewhere. The value is set in the
> cross-compiling tools via dpkg-architecture and should be read into
> debian/rules as such.
> As noted elsewhere in this thread, --build can be specified alone but is
> usually only used for specialist builds for i686 on i386 etc. I fail to
> see the merit of proposing that packages add --build to the normal
> Debian build for no reason.
No, it's used to prevent upstream packages from *wrongly* building for i686
on the i386 architecture, as I've now stated several times in this thread.
> I don't see why this makes the proposed change "bad". Please explain
> why ?= is better than = in this specific instance and why I should use
> SYSTEM instead of CROSS (when the "recommended" one is $(confflags)
> anyway) or add --build to every package instead of leaving the variable
> as empty.
> AFAICT there is no material reason to use the autofoo recommended
> layout and no justification for calling my layout "bad" merely because
> of minor changes in variable names.
It's bad because it's worse for the *common* case that the existing
autotools-dev recommendation. This is not a "minor change in variable
names", it's missing support for correct enforcement of the target
architecture in the non-cross-building case that the autotools-dev
recommendation has already addressed. I'm sorry for failing to notice this
lapse at first glance, I assumed you were at least taking advantage of the
established best practices instead of inventing solutions in a vacuum.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.