Re: Is emsandbox useful anymore?
+++ Neil Williams [2010-03-17 17:05 +0000]:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:01:13 +0100
> > Anyway I might be missing some bits, but I wanted to suggest about
> > empbuilder, it makes no sense to me, but an option on Debian's
> > pbuilder & sbuilder & friends (-a $arch) makes more sense if not
> > already there.
>
> If I could have done that I wouldn't have needed to write empdebuild.
>
> empdebuild does several things on top of normal pbuilder code:
>
> 1. installs cross-building toolchains for the requested arch
> 2. installs emdebian-tools inside the chroot
> (these first two steps can now be done by multistrap)
I don't think they are multistrap's job. Although I guess ths option
is equivalent to debootstrap --variant=buildd so not an unreasonable
extension.
I'd prefer to stay generic and simply have a cross-build-essential
package which you can choose to put in a chroot if it's a
cross-building chroot.
> 3. runs emdebuild inside the chroot instead of debuild, including
> emdebuild --build-deps which relies on apt-cross and xcontrol files.
But that's (emdebuild) an emdebian-specific thing. I just want
pbuilder to add -a arch to the build command it would have run, so it
can cross-build normal debian packages, and to enhance
pbuilder-satisfy-depends to grok xcontrol and whatever other magic we
have for getting cross-deps right. I suspect this is perfectly do-able
but have never sat down to try and make it work.
If pbuilder did this then it could make cross-building standard debian
packages much more reliable (for the same reasons pbuilder is good for
native building - clean chroots). Extending that functionality to
include running emdebian build commands should then be a smaller piece
of work.
> > >> 3. Start to strip out scripts like 'emsetup' and 'emchain' which are
> > >> also fairly broken. These scripts won't survive the removal of
> > >> apt-cross and, again, AFAICT don't actually complete at the moment
> > >> anyway.
> > >
> > > The function 'check my cross-toolchain is installed and works' is a
> > > useful one.
>
> That function needs a rewrite - it relies on apt-cross cache data which
> is usually flawed. The purpose is good, the code needs work.
I didn't realise we already had such a function - I was suggesting
adding one :-)
Wookey
--
Principal hats: iEndian - Balloonboard - Toby Churchill - Emdebian
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: