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

Re: asm/ucontext.h for armel eabi target



On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:05:11 -0500
Martin Morissette <mmorissette@8d.com> wrote:

> So does this mean phoneME (https://phoneme.dev.java.net/) cannot be
> built using emdebian crosstools since the build fails when it cannot
> find asm/context.h?

It means that phoneME is not compatible with the 2.6.26 kernel.

It isn't a cross-build problem, phoneME would not build natively on ARM
in this state. That would be a bug in phoneME.
 
> I understand that I added a file from a wrong architecture, but all it
> is really is a simple struct. Honestly, I can't understand why
> asm/ucontext.h wasn't present in the arm packages from the beginning.

Check the source of the linux-libc-dev package and find out which
architectures support this file in the current kernel. It certainly is
not supported on ARM or armel - which means that phoneME cannot require
it on ARM or armel, simple as that.

> Is there any documentation somewhere that justify these decisions? It
> seems weird knowing that include/ucontext.h and sys/ucontext.h are
> present but not asm/ucontext.h

Nothing to do with emdebian-tools - ask the kernel team.

> > Your package needs to adapt to the current kernel configuration
> > available in the linux-libc-dev package in Debian.
> >   
> I am not sure what this means exactly, could you be a little bit more
> detailed?
> 
> For the record, I am not familiar with distro packaging and
> cross-tools in general which explains some of my questions.

You need to be very familiar with Debian packaging in order to do
anything significant with Emdebian Crush (i.e. cross-building using
emdebian-tools). This situation will improve in the time before the
release of Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" - the release after the current freeze
for Debian 5.0 "Lenny".

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgpjiTOPRAvAi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: