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

Re: Building a gdb-multiarch and binutils-multiarch with --enable-targets=all

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011, Neil Williams wrote:
> Not a good change IMHO. Don't forget that this is still a dependency
> of dpkg-cross. #412118 #591542

 these are two bugs I filed...

> Has anyone actually had time to test Joey's contention that dh_strip
> is not the right solution to fix because of packages using `install
> -s` in their Makefiles?

 If you refer to his reply in the bug, both Simon and I got back to him
 in this bug

> Can't we just have a cross-strip package instead? That, IMHO, is the
> correct fix. Strip back binutils-multiarch to only provide strip
> (nicely recursive too). Then you can have all the supported
> architectures and maybe even retain the full version but NOT make it
> part of a default cross-building install. It could be as simple as
> only packaging strip into a new binary package when building
> binutils-multiarch.

 Providing only strip in binutils-multiarch wont help you with its size;
 the bulk of the size is in the bfd libs which I quoted in my original
 email.  Besides, cross-objdump is useful in at least dpkg-shlibdeps,
 and I can think of good uses for cross-size, cross-readelf or cross-nm
 (and the obvious cross-as).

> Loic: what problem did you find with dh_makeshlibs? When I tested with
> the binutils package for the armel cross toolchain without
> binutils-multiarch installed, I didn't get problems with
> dh_makeshlibs, only with strip.

 Which package did you try?  I think I hit it with some leaf lib package
 like zlib, but I'm not sure wihch one.

> Can you file a new bug for that one with full details please?

 I'm not sure, it's the same issue as dh_strip; I could split it out,
 but I don't think it's worth it

Loïc Minier

Reply to: