Re: Bug#447427: dpkg-cross: please support wrong architecture
On 10/22/07, Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:37:38 +0200
> Jonas Meyer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Package: dpkg-cross
> > Version: 2.0.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Hi,
> > To create toolchains that have a new debian name than an already existing
> > architecture it'd be useful if something like this worked:
> > dpkg-cross -a uclibc-mipsel -i libc6_2.6.1-6_mipsel.deb
> > dpkg-cross: libc6_2.6.1-6_mipsel.deb has wrong architecture (mipsel)
> > dpkg-cross: conversion of libc6_2.6.1-6_mipsel.deb failed.
> > Please consider adding an option to disable that check.
> When building the new package, where would the code to support this
> option need to put the files?
I'm assuming that adding uclibc-foo like I described here:
is the right way to do it.
> Also note:
> $ dpkg-architecture -auclibc-mipsel
> unknown Debian architecture uclibc-mipsel, you must specify GNU system
> type, too at /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture line 159.
> As dpkg-cross merges back into dpkg, dpkg-cross will increasingly rely
> on dpkg code. Just disabling the check isn't going to be sufficient. I
> am unsure how much dpkg-cross 2.x will be able to support architectures
> that are not already supported in dpkg-architecture and adding code to
> dpkg-cross that cannot be supported by dpkg is futile as dpkg-cross
> is expected to be removed before Lenny is released.
I never expected it to work without adding uclibc arches to dpkg.
> CC'ing debian-embedded so that others working on uclibc can contribute
> ideas on how dpkg and dpkg-cross can support unknown and new
I'm not sure what way of replying would be appropriate now. Please
tell me so you won't get everything three times.