Re: Debian cross infrastructure maintenance proposal
Alexander Shishckin wrote:
On 4/27/06, Wookey <email@example.com> wrote:
Yes. It is in the recently uploaded 2.16.1cvs20060413-1 so we can stop
carrying that, and next try to push the -uclibc architectures in (althogh
people need to agree which set of patches to push and the names (uclibc-i386
or i386-uclibc for example - patches for both exist). This is part of the
general 'arch-naming' debate we have been having. I'm not sure if a clib
naming convention has been agreed?
binutils package has little to do with architecture naming, although,
I've never seen or heard of cross toolchains supporting this $cpu-$os
scheme. And honestly, I haven't seen even patches against dpkg to even
allow for such weirdness (and break compatibility with debian ports).
Yes, it should remain $os-$cpu. Which brings up the question of why
do you mix $os with $libc? Shouldn't uclibc-i386 then really be i386-uclibc
(or, in full, linux-i386-uclibc)? How would you approach debianizing the
following GNU_TYPE: arm-uclinux-uclibc, which IMHO could best be named
Maybe, but we should get those in as wishlist bugs soon (along with binutils
and gcc) so that they can be discussed more widely.
I'm not sure if there's any need to raise bugs against gcc to get your
Alexander - you have had your couple of days :-)
Right you are, Mr. Dibbler. :)
The patch against latest binutils snapshot package is out there.
Comments are welcome, flame is discouraged.
It will take some additional time to put gcc to proper shape and then
you'll see the patches. But before that, I'll need to port
glibc-2.3.6. So expect a week or two, considering that nobody
volunteers to help and I do have other projects to do.
Indeed. So lets get any outstanding cross-build patches filed. It is
important to separate out the -uclibc patches and file those separately.
Why is that? I certainly won't be able to (easily) separate
uclibc-related stuff from our changes.
I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.