On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:12:39 -0400 Jim Heck <pinball.rules@gmail.com> wrote: > > My recommendation for a solution is to teach pbuilder how to resolve > > cross dependencies and stop installing -cross packages outside a > > chroot. We tried it, it is/was painful - let's learn the lesson, not > > repeat previous mistakes. > > > > > > How would this affect the continued availability of apt-cross and > dpkg-cross? It depends how bad this problem becomes. If a lot of -dev packages in common usage for cross-building (I'm thinking of ones you cannot easily avoid like libpam0g-dev, libxml2-dev, libcairo2-dev, libdirectfb*-dev - if any of those take up this change, apt-cross is just going to have to be removed as it cannot comply with Policy.) However, this only affects apt-cross - dpkg-cross does not need to change for this problem, it is not going to be removed because of this problem and it will not suddenly stop working due to this problem. apt-cross will. > I'd hate to see them (or their functionality outside of > pbuilder) go away completely, since I use them to manually build > cross toolchains based on a modification of the method described here > http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianToolchain under the heading 'Build > your own from sources'. You don't need the majority of the code in apt-cross to do that. Toolchains are predictable, you can hard code the packages involved and use other methods to download the relevant binaries if worst comes to worst. > I do this instead of using the pre-packaged > toolchains or emchain, since I need to make the toolchains standalone > for use outside of a Debian environment, using an alternate prefix so > that they compile for use and install under /opt/.. instead > of /usr/.. Look at buildcross. > I get great utility from the excellent Debian cross compiler > packages, but my need to support them with alternate build prefix > means that I need to make some manual changes to the rules makefiles > of the binutils and gcc packages prior to compilation. These changes > turn out in fact to be fairly trivial and generic, simply some > replacement of hardcoded '/usr' paths with a prefix variable that is > centrally defined. I'd be happy to post the diffs here and to submit > them upstream in the appropriate manner if they could be of use to > people beyond myself. If I were to do this, should I file a wishlist > bug against binutils and gcc Debian packages with the patches? Hector? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpTtxGZbba2i.pgp
Description: PGP signature