Re: cross-compiling Debian packages
I think I know now what the problem is, see below...
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:41PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > As you see, I get depends with -dcv1 suffix as well as -cross suffix.
> Yes, it's exactly what it should do.
> Each package xxx-arm-cross package created with dpkg-cross >= 1.26 will
> Provide: xxx-arm-dcv1. In your case, this will not allow libc6-arm-cross
> created by older dpkg-cross to satisfy dependency - while libc6-arm-cross
> created by dpkg-cross >= 1.26 will satisfy it.
> And that's correct, because previously dpkg-cross installed files
> info /usr/arm-linux/, and now it will install files to /usr/arm-linux-gnu/
> - so libc6-arm-cross created by older dpkg-cross can't satisfy the
Yes, I could guess all of this. However, why do I get -dcv1 as well
as -cross?. Aren't they exclusive? Also, a quick grep in my old
sources for dpkg-cross-1.25 reveals that already that version had -gnu
When I try to install generated -cross package I get unresolved
dependencies for libgcc1-arm-dcv1. This package is really called
libgcc1-arm-cross and is originated in the gcc source package, and
thus is not coming from dpkg-cross.
Did you already contribute a patch for gcc/build/control that fixes
> > The need for versioning does not justify IMHO the uglyness of
> > -dcv1 when compared to -cross. And it just "feels" wrong, since it is
> > not the type or instances of the files in the package that changed,
> > but the "packaging" of these files... Why couldn't you solve that
> > with version strings?
> I don't see how version string can be safely used here - because version
> strings from original debs are already used to handle dependences. There
> are two different dependency requirements - one that original packages
> should have version not less than ..., and other - that dpkg-cross should
> be fresh enough to place files inside new tree. I don't see way to use
> single version strings to handle both things.
Maybe embed a -dcvX in the version string?
> > > > Also, would you welcome patches that add the ability to handle
> > > > packages built with alternative libc
> > > > implementations, namely uClibc, Dietlibc and Newlib?
> > >
> > > Your patches are welcome.
> > >
> > > I thought that best way to handle other libc's is introducing other
> > > 'architectures', like i386-uclibc. Then tools could just cross-compile
> > > for this 'architecture'.
> > Yes, that's what I did. Please look into 'patches' at
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~kurzanov/debian/. I had to patch dpkg, as well
> > as dpkg-cross to make it all work.
> Thanks, I'll look at that.