Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:41:26PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em S?b, 2006-03-18 ?s 23:17 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult
> > of those tasks. It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all
> > 'standard debian packages' that make them first of all, cross-compile
> > correctly, and (only) then make them uClibc-friendly.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. Debian has support for several architectures, why
Supported architectures, yes. But what about un-supported ones, such
as i386-uclibc?
> a sub-arch would be harder? Many packages will just work. Remember that
> in such sub-arch, we can have uclibc-dev replacing libc6-dev, solving
> the builddeps...
Yeah, hopefully this will just work. From my experience, however,
some minimal but still significant amount of patching will be
needed.
>
> Have you ever seen uwoody[1]? there are not so many patches as you're
> claiming to be necessary... I'm really lost about what are you talking
> about...
>
> [1] http://people.debian.org/~andersee/uwoody/
>
I've heard that uwoody is abandoned by its originator... which is
the reason I stopped looking at that. Is there BTW any comparable
effort for sarge/etch?
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: