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

Re: ./configure in debian/rules

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:14:58PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. März 2006 03:12 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> > > I'm one of the people who actually helped design the GNU Makefile and
> > > configure standards, and --host does not "signal that you're
> > > cross-compiling."  What signals that you are cross-compiling is a
> > > disagreement between --host and --build.

> > That's the old way.  Autoconf changed this in the current releases.  Now,
> > specifying --host signals that you're cross-compiling, whether it
> > disagrees or not.

> > Yes, this was not a backward compatible change.  A lot of people were
> > upset about it.  And yes, it was a change in the GNU Makefile and
> > configure standards.  But see the current Autoconf manual:

> > `--host=HOST-TYPE'
> >      the type of system on which the package will run.  By default it
> >      is the same as the build machine.  Specifying it enables the
> >      cross-compilation mode.

> That's insane. However, it doen't say anything about the sitution of --build 
> and --host are used and both contain the same value.
> Work-around for the compiler could be to ship with symbolic links, e.g.
> gcc -> gcc-4.0 -> i686-linux-gcc-4.0

Um, the native target for Debian systems is i486-linux-gnu, not
i686-linux-gnu -- the symlink i486-linux-gnu-gcc-4.0 *does* exist.  If
you're using anything other than i486-linux-gnu as your host string for a
Debian package, then aside from just not working due to the missing
symlinks, it won't be policy-compliant.

We don't have a cross-compiling environment for an i686 target, sorry. :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: