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

Re: cross-compiling Debian packages

> 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 

>   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.

> > > 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.

Reply to: