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:
pgpYa6bJjPpDW.pgp
Description: PGP signature