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

Re: gcc-cross-dev details and future plans

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 06:24:50PM -0800, Dima Kogan wrote:
> And now, a larger question. What is the PURPOSE of the cross-gcc-dev
> package?

Let me list a few purposes:

 * Avoid code duplication. Rather than embedding all those patches into
   each and every cross-gcc-$arch package, keep them in one location.
 * Collect bug reports. Rather than having to file each and every bug
   report six times, assign them to cross-gcc-dev.
 * Enable users to build cross toolchains for architecture combinations
   we currently do not consider relevant.
 * Enable users to build of cross toolchains for non-release
   architectures (e.g. m68k).

If I am not mistaken, we should be able to get to a point where you only
upload src:cross-gcc and once cross-gcc-dev is built, the
cross-gcc-$arch packages only need a binNMU.

> I looked at what it would take to make this work both ways: by
> building/install cross-gcc-dev or directly from the source tree. This is
> mostly simple, except as currently-defined, the cross-gcc packages
> Depend:cross-gcc-dev to pull in the rules.generic file. I think it's

I think you mean Build-Depends rather than Depends?

> important that if we do allow both ways of building toolchains that they
> produce equivalent output, and this dependency makes this impossible. I

I do not understand the problem you see with that dependency. I also do
not see why we need two ways. The archindep approach seems fine to me
and has significant benefits (see above).

> propose to either go back from using cross-gcc-dev to build the
> toolchains, or to include rules.generic in the cross-gcc Packages,
> instead of as an indirect dependency. Any preferences here?

Are you aware that the cross-gcc-$arch packages no longer contain the
patches in the archindep branch? Is there something special about
rules.generic that poses a problem that does not exist for the patches?


Reply to: