[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Do we really need gcc-m68k-linux?



On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 04:17:21PM -0700, idalton@ferret.dyndns.org wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 05:16:29PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, can someone NMU the package and fix the FHS issues?  Perhaps
> > > someone can sponsor Ferret's upload.
> > 
> > Let me know if someone does this.  Right now, there may/may not be a
> > binutils-m68k to accompany it due to necessary changes in binutils (I can
> > upload one if needed).
> 
> I'm getting updated to test it right now. If I recall correctly, it
> build-depends on dpkg-cross-ified libc6/m68k.
> 
> And I have outlines for an automated cross-compiler builder script.
> Posted to debian-sparc maybe 8 months ago, I think.

Okay. Just had time to poke at the toolchain. Chris, I just sent a bug
asking if you could put cross-binutils build support back in but have it
build no cross targets by default. If we're going to support cross-compiling
in any sane way, we probably should have a system that dpkg-crosses the
necessary libs and builds the packages on the target machine.

Would this system work better than re-including binutils-<arch> in the
archive again? If so.. I think we should just pull gcc-m68k-linux from Woody
and try to work on something for (Sarge, is it?) Woody+1. Besides, it
build-depends on packages that don't properly exist in Debian. ;)


-- 
Ferret

I will be switching my email addresses from @ferret.dyndns.org to
@mail.aom.geek on or after September 1, 2001, but not until after
Debian's servers include support. 'geek' is an OpenNIC TLD. See
http://www.opennic.unrated.net for details about adding OpenNIC
support to your computer, or ask your provider to add support to
their name servers.

Attachment: pgp3XilTZg6Lm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: