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

Re: About gcc-defaults package support

Hi Nikita,

> > Hi Nikita,
> >
> > > Probably I will need one more dpkg-cross upload - will you sponsor
> > > me?
> >
> > Of course!
> As a e-mail debug session with Erich Waelde <ew.ng116837@online.de>
> shows,  there is some problem with umask handling - looks that in some
> situation,  dpkg-cross's umask setting does not help and package is
> built with files  that are not world-readable. I need to look deeper
> into this to find out  what is going on.
> Also I want to (partially-)close some bugs - e.g. #284439 - I have
> some  ideas about how more or less general framework for
> autotools-vars  discovery should work, but I could not find time to
> implement this for  some months, so it is better to include proposed
> config.m32r at least.
> I *hope* to prepare an updated package this week.
> >
> > > Until now, I used to use update-alternatives instead. Is that bad
> > > for some reason?
> >
> > Ohh, I did not realised that you used update-alternatives. Sorry,
> > but I worked on gcc-2.95 cross-compiler for PowerPC. Now it works
> > with the brunch version of dpkg-cross's APT wrapper.
> >
> > The usage of update-alternatives within the gcc packges is a 80%
> Why not 100%?
> I think that alternatives is better here, because it should be
> developer's  chose which cross compiler version is default for him,
> not mine or  Debian's - because only developer knows which works
> better for his target.
> However, maybe I don't see something? Please explain your reasoning.
For C++ you *have to* use the Debian's default compiler due to ABI
incompatibilities for the different GCC versions. The ABI was changed
multiple times for different architectures.

If a developer uses his favorit compiler it may not work for C++ in
Debian because the precompiled C++ libraries used an another compiler

Raphael Bossek

Attachment: pgp_ldVtnz0fW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: