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

Re: etch-m68k and newer packages

On Sat, November 28, 2009 7:12 pm, fthain@telegraphics.com.au wrote:

> There are some packages that I'd like to see built under etch-m68k. From
> the gcc-4.2 build failures that Stephen showed us, I have my doubts about
> packages in the testing/unstable suites.
> I'd like to see some etch-m68k buildds put to work on the NPTL tool chain.
> I was able to cross-compile the debian sources plus TLS/NPTL patches.
> There's still a couple of issues. Firstly the ABI is not finalized. But
> that doesn't mean that the exercise is not useful. In particular,
> binutils-2.19.51 can be uploaded. The new kernel and kernel headers would
> then be needed, but cannot be uploaded.

So binutils-2.19.51 should be built with which compiler? Any patches needed?

> Another issue is one of the requirements of eglibc-2.10, which is gcc >=
> 4.2. One way around that is to patch out that version check for building
> the glibc headers. Given the headers, it is possible to build gcc-4.4.

So we need to build eglibc with gcc 4.2 or 4.4? Any patches against debian

> The third issue that comes to mind is gcc itself. It seems to me that all
> gcc packages should drop the finline-gnu89 patch that only m68k uses. I
> think it is there solely for glibc-2.5 (and I don't trust that binary
> anyway).

Should this be after we get eglibc-2.10 functional? All we have right now
is glibc-2.5, right?



Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!

Reply to: