Re: Bug#447427: dpkg-cross: please support wrong architecture
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:21:26PM +0200, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> No. I want to beable to forcibly cross install mipsel libc packages as
> uclibc packages to build the cross-compiler.
Oh. Well that seems like a totally different brand of horrible and
wrong to just supporting uclibc-mipsel and that requiring a bit of
hand-hacking to the dpkg tables.
I have a hard time thinking of how that could possibly work unless
you end up with a system that depends on _both_ glibc and uclibc,
and that kind of defeats the point of using uclibc...
> From gccs README.cross:
> -1.3. libc for target
> -You also need libc library and development packages for the target
> -architecture installed.
For uclibc this means you need uclibc.
> I'd prefer if there was proper support for bootstrapping
There is. See how the SLIND uclibc package creates a bootstrap uclibc
that can be used for this. A post I made to this list in June might
help too, it describes the minimal things I needed to do to bootstrap
a uclibc toolchain entirely from source.
> but this seems to be a pretty good way around that problem to me.
mixing libc versions seems like a pretty good way to _make_ problems
for yourself to me. glibc and uclibc are not binary compatible
replacements for one another, so if the tools are barking at you
when you try to do that I can only consider that to be a good thing,
and not a bug that we ought to 'fix' by making that warning go away.
We do need to fix the extra dpkg-arch thing, but the fix for what you
describe here is that you need a bootstrap uclibc package, the glibc
one is not a replacement for that.
(who is on this list, so no need to cc me)