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

Re: Need help, trying to cross-build LibNXT

Hi Nicolas,

d-cross@l.d.o is the right list to contact. Thank you for reaching out.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 05:40:32PM +0100, Nicolas Schodet wrote:
> My problem is when I try to cross-compile libnxt itself. For a reason I
> do not understand, gcc-arm-none-eabi is installed for the host system
> instead of the build system. The other build deps are installed for the
> build system so there must be a decision made somewhere.
> Here is an example build failure:
> https://salsa.debian.org/nschodet/libnxt/-/jobs/2129880#L1417
> It is installing gcc-arm-none-eabi for arm64, but binutils-arm-none-eabi
> for build system:
>     The following NEW packages will be installed:
>       binutils-arm-none-eabi{a} gcc-arm-none-eabi:arm64{a}
>       libglib2.0-0{a} libgmp10:arm64{a} libisl23:arm64{a}
>       libmpc3:arm64{a} libmpfr6:arm64{a} libudev1:arm64{a}
>       libusb-1.0-0:arm64{a} libusb-1.0-0-dev:arm64{a} meson{a}
>       ninja-build{a} pkg-config{a} python3-distutils{a}
>       python3-lib2to3{a} python3-pkg-resources{a} scdoc{a}
>       zlib1g:arm64{a}
> Do you know why it chooses to install it for host system, and how I can
> force it to install it for build system?

I'm unsure at this point, but I think the most likely issue is bad

Until two days ago, gcc-arm-none-eabi was not marked Multi-Arch:
foreign. Your build was performed around a day ago. I guess that it used
the old version. The latest upload fixed #960166 and I think that should
fix your problem. I tried locally and it uses the right
gcc-arm-none-eabi here.

Please retry. If that doesn't fix your issue, please reply. I'll
consider the lack of a reply as confirmation of my guess.

I also recommend double checking with
http://crossqa.debian.net/src/libnxt. There you can see three builds.
Two builds failed the same way as yours, because they used the host arch
cross compiler (now fixed in unstable). The most recent one succeeded.
If salsa continues to fail, it likely is an infrastructure issue that we
need to sort out.


Reply to: