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

Re: armeb patches for debian unstable

> Privet vsem!
> I've started building binutils/gcc/glibc for debian unstable on
> armeb.  I have binutils 2.16.1cvs20050902 and gcc 3.3 built, gcc
> 3.4 is finishing right now, and then I'll tackle building gcc 4.0.

Please note that gcc-4.0 packages contain serioursly outdated 
cross-compiler-building code.

Proper update of it is on hold because dpkg-cross update should be done 
first, which is in turn on hold yet because of some problems with my free 
time, which I *really* *hope* will be resolved *really* soon now.

To update dpkg-cross properly, following should be done:
- prefix and path change, see [1]
- because of that, some changes are needed to make cross-packages tree 
consistent [ensure that if X-arch-cross depends on Y-arch-cross, and 
X-arch-cross uses new paths, Y-arch-cross should also use new paths]
- I'm thinking that almost all settings from /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-compile 
should be removed. In fact, all but per-package additional variable 
setting and unsetting. All paths for each arch should be defined to 
particular values. This is needed to make dependences reliable (e.g. if 
libc6-dev-arm-cross is installed, this *ensures* 
that /usr/arm-linux-gnu/include/stdio.h is there). These particular paths 
should be standard ones - for now, tree under /usr/${target-alias}/, but 
if multiarch proposals will proceed on this topic and 
include /usr/{include,lib}/${target-alias}/, dpkg-cross should also swithc 
to these paths.
If one needs packages that install to non-default locations, these should 
be created not by modifying paths in /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-compile, but by 
defining a new 'arch', with needed paths. This should be done in such way 
that not only dpkg-cross knows about this new arch, but also dpkg and 
dpkg-dev and friends. This will make it possible to cross-compile 'normal' 
debian packages for such 'arch's.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-embedded/2005/07/msg00031.html

Reply to: