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

Re: Bug#180128: state of integration of dpkg-cross into dpkg

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 13:47 -0700, shawn wrote: 
> On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 21:45 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: 
> > No, not really. The main problem is that there's cases where there's
> > no obvious 1:1 mapping, take i386/x32/amd64 or arm/armel/armhf/arm64,
> > or mips where there's three ABIs, etc. And I don't think this is
> > generally useful anyway, less so now with multiarch when multilib
> > packages will be disappearing.
I guess I already have to rework the calls into dpkg-architecture to
work with this. I wasn't thinking about these cases. And since this is,
well---a hack until much-arch takes over (does this really make sense to
use full cross-compilers instead of multilib?) it would be OK to hard
code some of this logic into the gcc-default/multilib defaults packages
so that we can make it work now with the same api that the
cross-compilers will provide--making the transition in the future

Again, not sure which package should provide binutils symlinks. Maybe a
new binutils-multilib package? This is a problem all the cross-compiler
stuff is going to have to address as well. not that much stuff, but as
its in the path maybe better to avoid polluting with stuff like putting
it in the binutils package, and similar. 
> > 
> > > I would be using this for a patch making dpkg cross-building work with
> > > gcc's multilib in gcc-defaults package.
> Where is this logic that i can tap into for creating these symlinks if
> not in dpkg? 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > guillem

-Shawn Landden

Reply to: