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

Re: procedure?

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 01:51, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I managed to compile kernel using make-kpkg though it is not clean yet
> but it does compile...
> The problem before was that make-kpkg from kernel-package 8.038.biarch2
> overrides GCC and CC variables in rules to explicit 'gcc-3.3 -m64',
> which is fine in the most of the cases but to compile
> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
> Makefile there contains explicit -m32 with note:
> # linux/arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/Makefile
> #
> # create a compressed vmlinux image from the original vmlinux
> #
> # Note all the files here are compiled/linked as 32bit executables.
> so it must be linked in 32bit fasion and some modules must be compiled
> in 32 bit fasion and I believe kernel source's Makefiles all take care
> about that. So we shouldn't just override GCC and CC from outside with
> -m64 but rather use something like gcc.bart which is clever enough to
> don't override specified -m32 with -m64.
> So I sugged to package g++ general package which will put some wrapper
> like gcc.bart in place of standard gcc and g++ so in kernel-package we
> will be able to don't hardcode -m64 in.
> Ideas/Comments? Just don't keep silence
> --Yarik
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:50:29AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > So what is procedure now to suggest patches to current packages? 
> > 
> > I just managed to compile 2.6.0 kernel using make-kpkg and thought to
> > discuss necessary changes to occur to make it into the mainstream of our
> > project, but I'm not aware of how it works now.
> > 
Hello Yarik,

I'm too much of a newbie to be able to help you.
I don't think anybody is being silent, I think that this is just a very
low volumn list. Somebody will probably get back to you within a couple
of days, if not today.


Reply to: