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

Re: gcc-cross-dev details and future plans

+++ Dima Kogan [2014-12-17 18:24 -0800]:

Oh, one extra thing:

on IRC you asked about a couple of other things:

re gcc-source versioning:
Dima5: We could also make cross-gcc-dev contain the actual patched gcc
       source. that would still make its installation set the same size as
       when it depends on gcc-4.9-source, but it would always be installable

Interesting idea. That's kind of heading back to the days of
cross-toolchain-source which seems a bad direction, but if we are
maintaining a significant patchset on top of gcc-4.9 then it sort-of
makes sense. Being forced to keep the patches in-sync is almost
certainly healthier long-term.

Dima5: What do we know about the libgcc1-dev dependency of the binary gcc packages?
       I'm seeing that gcc-4.9=4.9.2-7 Depends on libgcc-4.9-dev (>= 4.9.2-7)
       and that gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabi=4.9.2-7 Depends on libgcc-4.9-dev:armel (= 4.9.2-7)
       Note that one is = and the other is >=. Is that intentional?

So, yes a given gcc is only guaranteed to work with the matching
version of libgcc1 (According to toolchain engineers, I checked), so
the dependency really should be '='. We changed this in the
cross-toolchains. Now in practice it usually will work with some
nearby versions, so we could be more flexible, but '=' is safe.

I filed a bug (and patch) about the generated dep being too loose:

Which was declared fixed in 4.9.2-4, but only as 
"  * Remove unsupported with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs configurations.
    Closes: #760770, #766924, #770413."

Guess I should re-open that as whether the dep should be '=' or '>='
is nothing to do with with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Reply to: