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

Re: toolchain howto

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:46AM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> * Steve Feehan <sfeehan@sbb.uvm.edu> [030902 10:38]:
> > Is anyone aware of a x86_64 toolchain howto? What software, 
> > what versions, which order, etc.
> Ah, good old web archive to the rescue:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20020210105525/www.x86-64.org/documentation_folder/build
> Note that Debian packages for this stuff exist... but you can follow the
> above to build your own compiler.

Yeah, I tried those. I've tried to follow the discussions about
how to handle the biarch issues.

Here is my thought, and my reason for wanting to build the toolchain.

I want to keep a mostly stock woody install. I want to avoid
switching to testing and not replace core packages (dpkg, libc6*, 
gcc, etc.) with hacked/biarch version.

To this end, I intend to create a 64 bit toolchain in it's own
subtree (say /opt/amd64). I'd like to create dpkgs for the
various software that doesn't conflict with the already installed
32 bit versions. I've never created debian packages before, but
I've pretty familiar with rpm so hopefully learning the dpkg 
particulars won't be too difficult. I'll make the dpkgs available 
as an extra line in sources.list.

The benefits (as I see them) are that I can keep a mostly stock,
"stable" system. Users who want/need to create 64 bit binaries
can use the alternate toolchain. I keep a clean upgrade path to
a future 32/64 biarch version of debian when it becomes stable.

Maybe I should also give a bit of background. The users I 
support do scientific computing. They don't mind compiling
their own software (and much isn't available as a dpkg anyways).
They do need legacy 32 bit support, as some software is distributed
only as binaries.

Comments? Does this sound like a reasonable interim solution?


> NB: I will try my best to fix the glibc/ldd problem noted in the
> previous thread today :)
> Good luck,
> Bart.
> -- 
> 				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

Steve Feehan

Reply to: