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

getting gcc for hppa into the archive

Hi debian-gcc,

For a few months I have been producing gcc debs for the hppa port. Up to this 

- these debs have just resided on the hppa port ftp site and have not been in 
the proper debian archive
- hppa-linux support has only been in the hppa port CVS, not yet merged 
- the debs that I have done were based on the experimental gcc-3.0 packages 
but using bits from the port's CVS
- the debs did not have any sort of hppa specific naming/numbering scheme 
making them indistinguishable from proper ones

At this point I think the toolchain has stablized enough that I'd like to get 
proper debs into the archive. All of our diffs have been accepted by upstream 
but on the 3.1 branch. IMHO the diffs are too large to just add to the current 
3.0 package. So I see two possiblities,

1.) Produce hppa specific gcc debs using either the port's CVS or the upstream 
3.1 branch. I could do the packages and they would have no affect on the 
compilers for other archs. This would be redundant packaging/tracking work 
that would be needed until the regular debian package contained all the hppa 

2.) Do a general gcc-3.1 based on the upstream 3.1 branch. Teach gcc-defaults 
to use 3.1 for hppa. This gcc-3.1 package could either be "Architecture: any" 
or just for hppa and other ports that needed it. IMHO This is a more 
appropriate solution and might be useful for other archs. Exposure would be 
limited to the archs using 3.1. This might be more work for the debian-gcc 

In addition to needing hppa gcc debs I also need to do hppa64 cross compiler 
debs(mostly for building 64bit kernels). I am hoping to use the GCC_TARGET 
environment variable thing in the 3.0 package but haven't started working on 
it yet. This may have some impact on what to do for the normal gcc debs.

How would you like to see these packages done? Any other ideas?


Matt Taggart        Linux Development Lab
taggart@fc.hp.com   HP Linux Systems Operation

Reply to: