Re: debian/dists/stable/main/binary-i386/devel/binutils-mipsel-linux.deb,gcc-mipsel-linux.deb, etc.
The reason why I ask is that I've spent a lot of time trying to build a gcc
3.0 / glibc 2.2.3 mipsel cross-toolchain and I am still not done. But,
building toolchains isn't what I want to spend my time doing. I think there
must be more people like me that just want to cross-build their apps. Will
every one of us spend time building our own toolchains? Seems like a waste
of time. The learning curve is steep enough, not to mention the iteration
time wasted in mistakes.
In the past I've simply used toolchains built by other people. I would like
to continue this tradition. :-)
Regards,
Brad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@netexpress.net>
To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com>
Cc: <debian-mips@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:22 PM
Subject: Re:
debian/dists/stable/main/binary-i386/devel/binutils-mipsel-linux.deb,gcc-mip
sel-linux.deb, etc.
> Hi Bradley,
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
>
> > Why not? And if so, where?
>
> > (What I mean is why not have deb files availble to for cross-building?)
>
> The primary issue seems to be that building the cross-tools is difficult
to
> orchestrate at the source package level, and can severely hinder
autobuilders
> for platforms that have enough trouble building /one/ gcc binary package
in a
> timely manner.
>
> I do have gcc-2.95-mipsel, binutils-mipsel, and friends on my x86 system,
> which I built from the standard source packages, but there just doesn't
seem
> to be a suitable way to upload such packages to the Debian archives (at
least,
> not a way that's universally agreed to be suitable). I don't want to
upload
> (or maintain!) a completely redundant set of source packages just for a
single
> cross-builder on a single host architecture, and the maintainers of the
> affected packages don't like any of the other options; in fact, the gcc
3.0
> packages, last I saw, had had a lot of support for cross-builders stripped
out
> of them because it was more hassle than it was worth.
>
> I'm happy to lend a hand and some experience to anyone who's interested in
> trying to come up with a workable scheme that lets us provide more
cross-build
> tools with the Debian system, but given the scope of the problems that
would
> need to be overcome, I've been content to build local packages for my own
> cross-building up to now.
Reply to: