Bug#333952: Cross-compilers should not use biarch
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 07:35:39PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> (such as powerpc64), because the contents are in lib64 directories and
> the include files are in alternate locations as well.
The include files nowadays are in /usr/include/<biarch>, so no. It
would only need to know about /lib64.
> Furthermore, it is not clear how it should convert these packages. If
> the architecture string were to be believed, it should stick the files
> in the same arch directory under /usr as the standard libraries for that
> architecture; however, the architecture string is in fact misleading,
> and the files should be put in the directory under /usr corresponding to
> the alternate architecture.
Why? A good motto for cross compilers is that they should be as much
as possible like the corresponding native compilers. The native
compiler knows /usr/lib and /usr/lib64; the cross compiler should know
/usr/i486-linux-gnu/lib and /usr/i486-linux-gnu/lib64.
Or just update to the current year, and use ..../usr/lib and
..../usr/lib64, and --with-sysroot, in which case just about everything
becomes easier.
> In the ideal case, with long-term work on dpkg and dpkg-cross to support
> multiple architectures, it might be possible to just make use of the
> binary packages for the alternate architecture, rather than needing
> hacks like "libc6-dev-powerpc64" and "libc6-dev-amd64". It might also
> be possible to hack dpkg-cross to deal with such hacks in the meantime.
dpkg-cross should presumably not diverge from what dpkg does, and today
dpkg uses libc6-dev-amd64.
> However, at the moment, this patch makes it possible to build at least a
> plain cross-compiler for such architectures.
I think it's worth doing it correctly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply to: