Re: dpkg-cross: dh_strip & make-kpkg issues
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > For all those who are searching for a reasonable solution, I've
> > > found one that works without modifing dpkg-cross in any way. Here
> > > the snippet of the required cross-compile configuration file:
> > >
> > > scope makeflags:
> > >
> > > package kernel-image-2.4.26-powerpc:
> > > ARCH=ppc
> > But this is architecture-dependent, isn't it?
> No. It's depends on the package.
I'm becoming confused...
'package X:' accepts sourcepackage name or binary package name?
Until now I thought that it accepts source package name.
Is 'kernel-image-2.4.26-powerpc' a source package name?
> If the kernel sources would accept GNU
> notations for their architectures everything would work fine with
> dpkg-cross .
Kernel developers won't change anything unless a HUGE reason exists.
They definitly don't (and shouldn't) care about dpkg-cross.
> > Maybe we should add one more statement to cross-compile config file -
> > architectire XXX:
> > to set architecture-specific variables?
> It's not resonable for me because it makes the configuration
> complicated. We have today 'mode', 'scope' and 'package'. 'scope' per
> 'mode' and 'package' per 'scope'. Introducing 'architecture' would make
> it more complicated. There would be an additional level 'mode' per
> 'architecture' or 'architecture' per 'mode' ?
'mode', 'scope' and 'package' are orthogonal, not scoped. Adding one more
orthogonal axis ('architecture') won't make things much more compicated.
And some architecture-specific settings may be needed in some case, even
if kernel is not such case.
However, we may postpone this until a real-world example is found.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----