Re: Autobuilding with cross-compiler to solve m68k woes?
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:38:00PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Ben Gertzfield <che@debian.org> writes:
> > [ Another inevitable cross-compilation suggestions ]
>
> No, no, no. Cross compiling is NOT the answer. I would rather see
> m68k dropped than having it cross-compiled. Cross-compiling is evil,
> does not work all the time and is quite simply not the answer...
You don't really give any reasons for your strong aversion against
cross-compiling. What exactly is wrong with it?
It doesn't /need/ to work all the time - the problematic packages can
still be handled by a native buildd.
Compilation of packages can go wrong with a native compiler in about
as many ways as with a cross-compiler. (Ironically, that's *exactly*
what has happened to me: The current stable potato does not work on my
ARM machine, I /suspect/ things like libc have been miscompiled in
/some/ way.)
> Buildd has many faults, but one of it's strengths is that it is
> perfectly scalable out of the box. If an architecture is really too
> slow, you add more boxes.
I couldn't agree more that this is preferable to cross-building.
Apparently, nobody wants to provide more m68k boxes, though. :-(
Cheers,
Richard
--
__ _
|_) /| Richard Atterer | CS student at the Technische | GPG key:
| \/¯| http://atterer.net | Universität München, Germany | 888354F7
¯ ´` ¯
Reply to: