Re: Ideas about the lib / lib64 names, subarchs, porting guidelines [Re: irc brainstorming notes]

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Bart Trojanowski <bart@jukie.net> writes:

> * Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [031209 17:16]:
> > Could. A i686 autobuilder (or a way to get the i386 to compile for a
> > different target) would be needed.
> > 
> > Not sure how i484, i586, i686 debs are supposed to be build anyway?
> 
> This may require a bit of debian/rules hacking.  But since it's not been
> a problem for 99.99% of the packages (exceptions being glibc, mplayer,
> kernel, etc) we don't need to worry about these changes.  The means are
> there... dpkg-architecture can very well return i686, but some packages
> may chose to ignore it.
> 
> > There isn't realy any support to recompiled for a better arch. I guess
> > they would need a gcc wraper that adds -mcpu=i686 instead of our
> > -m32/64.
> 
> Ideally I think this too could be handled by autoconf.  configure
> --build and --conf options should be sufficient to let configure pick
> the right compiler.  We may have to setup symlinks/wrappers to support
> 'linux-${arch}-gcc' and so on.
> 
> I would like for gcc to build for the architecture specified by uname -m
> by default.  It would be nice if that was done right in gcc and not a
> wrapper, as it is hacked to do now.
> 
> B.

A -mcpu=host would be real great. The problem is that that would
require runtime checks otherwise if you compile gcc on i686 it would
break on i386.

MfG
        Goswin