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

Re: Long-term mass bug filing for crossbuild support



On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:05:55 -0500
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> No, it's used to prevent upstream packages from *wrongly* building for i686
> on the i386 architecture, as I've now stated several times in this thread.

But why should that be added as part of a fix for cross-building? It
isn't relevant.

If a package does not already use --build in a Debian build, why change
it? It's not up to me.

> It's bad because it's worse for the *common* case that the existing
> autotools-dev recommendation.  This is not a "minor change in variable
> names", it's missing support for correct enforcement of the target
> architecture in the non-cross-building case that the autotools-dev
> recommendation has already addressed. 

It's not up to me to enforce the non-cross-building case. These bugs
are about cross-building. Some packages use --build already and those
are unchanged, I just add --build and --host when cross compiling.
Other packages use neither --build nor --host and I set both only when
cross-building. I don't see why a cross-building patch should specify
--build for the native build.

> I'm sorry for failing to notice this
> lapse at first glance, I assumed you were at least taking advantage of the
> established best practices instead of inventing solutions in a vacuum.

There isn't a vacuum, I'm quite familiar with the autotools docs - I just
don't see why a cross-building patch should tinker with --build for the
native build if the package does not use it already (and if it does, I
just leave it in place).

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpox9JQqX339.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: