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

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 dependency.
>   Yes, I could guess all of this. However, why do I get -dcv1 as well
> as -cross?

-arch-cross provides -arch-dcvX

> Also, a quick grep in my old 
> sources for dpkg-cross-1.25 reveals that already that version had -gnu
> stuff in...

No, I changed paths in 1.26 (first release after paths in debian toolchain 

>   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.

You have too old version of libgcc1-arm-cross, that does not provide 
libgcc1-arm-dcv1 (and, btw, installs to /usr/arm-linux/)

I've updated gcc-4.0 source package to build -arch-cross packages with 
proper provides, but still could not find time for 3.4/3.3. Help on that 
is welcomed.

Some prebuilt packages are at 

> > >   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?

No, because 1.2.4 will be greater than 1.2.3-dcvX


Attachment: pgpCFUk6sPl_1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: