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

Re: dpkg-cross

Hash: SHA1

> One thing I don't think we agree on is that I think there should be
> binary cross-toolchain packages to download. If people could just
> apt-get them that would be a major source of hassle removed for
> developers (it's still not a trivial thing to get right). They have been
> able to do this from the emdebian archive for several years. As you say
> there are _loads_ of combinations, but most are not needed. If debian
> itself does not want all this stuff then another repository should be
> created (it could be emdebian) with current builds of binutils and gcc
> for popular cross pairs (e.g. x86->arm, x86->powerpc, x86->m68k).

I've read somewhere in debian mailing lists archives that debian won't 
enable cross development tools build, because there are too many 
combinations, most of them are not needed by anybody, and buildd power is 
not infinite.

So the current approach is to use different debian/rules targets for 
cross-tools builds.

> Being able to add emdebian to your sources and do apt-get install
> task-arm-cross and then everything 'just works' is really useful.

- - cross-binutils build ok and work for all debian archs as targets
- - gcc-3.3 and 3.4 build ok for alpha, arm, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, and 
powerpc targets; hppa (both 3.3 and 3.4), s390 (both 3.3 and 3.4), and 
sparc (3.3 only) fail, I'll try to fix them in near future
- - dpkg-cross 1.14.5 can convert base libraries (linux-lernel-headers, 
libdb1-compat, libc6, libc6-dev) for all debian archs.
- - libgcc1-*-cross and libstdc++*-cross are created while cross-gcc is being 
So everything necessary for basic C and C++ development at least for 7 
mentioned targets seems to be ready.

A simple script may be used to build a set of packages.
One that I used for testing is attached (patch for gcc should not be needed 
with version currently in sid).

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


Attachment: script
Description: application/shellscript

Reply to: