Hi, On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 07:49:05PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote: > Introducing CC_FOR_BUILD or BUILDCC for the build_host compiler might > also be good at some point for packages which need to native compile > code to be able to cross compile it. $CC_FOR_BUILD would be the convention from the GNU "toplevel" project. If, at some point, we were to decide that we want dpkg-buildpackage to set $CC, then it should at the same time also set $CC_FOR_BUILD, so "toplevel" based projects (i.e. binutils, gcc, gdb) don't break when we override $CC. Currently, we do neither, and that appears to work as well -- I expect projects that build tools but don't use "toplevel" as their project root or otherwise follow their convention to break if $CC starts being exported. This is a very small group, nevertheless it would require patches to be submitted and incorporated or maintained. Perhaps we ought to write a policy extension to define how packages should react to $CC being set? Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature