Re: Bug#344833: attached an ugly and hacky patch which allows me to build 2.6.15 on powerpc.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:44:20 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 10:23:20PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Umm. I'll accept part of this patch -- the part where you set
>> KERNEL_ARCH based on KPKG_SUBARCH. I'm not going to change the
>> common/* stuff just for ppc. If it appears that needs changing,
>> then there is a bug elsewhere.
> Well, Then you didn't fix anything at all, really. You make a wrong
> assumption on the kernel ARCH vs the debian architecture,
I designed this stuff. I know what the --arch argument to k-p
means. I, however, have no idea what you mean by "debian
architecture", or what the significance of that might be, but it is
not a kernel-package thing, so I am not sure what I am supposed to do
with that.
And the kernel architiceture is what is passed to the kernel
Makefile as ARCH=ffo, and kernel-package stores it under KERNEL_ARCH
> and this breaks in cases like powerpc where there is not a 1-1
> mapping between both, i guess amd64 also suffer from this problem,
> but i am not sure how you solved this.
No, it does not. ANd neither does amd64 break.
> The other day you complained i just filled a bug report without
> investigating, and now i investigated, and you just refuse to fix
> the brokeness, claiming there is a bug elsewhere or something.
If there was brokenness to fix in the way you imagine, I
would.
> So, to make things clear, the official powerpc debian/dpkg arch is
> powerpc,
Well, that's fine and dandy. I am not sure I know what
"debian/dpkg arch" means, though, and What does this have to do with
kernel-package, anyway?
> the unnofficial andreas-jochens-pure64 debian/dpkg arch is ppc64,
> and the future multi-arch 64bit powerpc debian/dpkg arch will be
> powerpc64, once we have multi-arch support.
Again, unless this is what we pass to the kernel as ARCH=foo
(KERNEL_ARCH, in other words), I am not sure of the significance.
> On the kernel side, upto now, we had two kernel archs (ARCH=ppc for
> 32bit and ARCH=ppc64 for 64bit), and we are slowly merging this into
> a single ARCH=powerpc. ARCH=ppc64 has dissapeared and is replaced by
> ARCH=powerpc since
> 2.6.15 (including the -rc ones), and the 32bit powerpc arch can
> build with
> both ARCH=ppc and ARCH=powerpc as of 2.6.15, it is expected that
> ARCH=ppc will go away in 2.6.16 or soon thereafter.
OK, good, I understand this. I think we are more or less on
the right track here.
> Since kernel-package aims to be able to build kernels for newer and
> older kernels, we need to support all three cases. In order to do
> this, we need to be able to set the ARCH field accordying to version
No, ARCH is the wrong thing to set here. We should be using
--subarch.
> and 32/64 bitness. I used to hardcode the ARCH from the KPKG_SUBARCH
> (powerpc->ARCH=ppc,
powerpc64-> ARCH=ppc64), but this is no more future proof, and i
powerpc64-> believe was
> kind a suboptimal back then. The right way is to be able to tell
> make-kpkg the ARCH to use, which i believe is what the --arch arg is
> supposed to be for, but you are making a confusion between the
> debian/dpkg arch and the kernel arch, which is the cause of this
> problem.
No. --arch is not meant to be used like that.
> So, it would be nice if you could define clearly what the --arch is
> for, to set the debian/dpkg arch or the kernel arch, and if we
> really need to be able to set the debian/dpkg arch in this way, then
> you need also to provide an option for setting the kernel arch.
--arch is DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU (or DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU, if that
does not exist). If you tell kerel-package some value of arch that is
different from DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU, kernel-package knows you are cross
compiling.
> Current code, apart from the purely powerpc case, and my unsureness
> of chosing the ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc for 2.6.15, make two broken
> assumptions about this :
> 1) the --arch seems clearly to be used only for cross compilation,
> and altough you have a funny and unexplained powerpc64 special
> casing, it doesn't really solve the problem in his generality.
The special casing is gone, and seems to have been a
historical artifact.
> 2) kernel-package goes under the assumption that the kernel ARCH
> is the same as the debian architecture, which is obviously
> wrong.
You are wrong about that. kernel-package _defaults_ to setting
kernel ARCH to be the same as DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU, but does not
_assume_ they are the same. Big difference.
> So, all in all, i think the bug is in kernel-package, and we are
> dependent on you fixing it properly to be able to again build
> kernels on powerpc, which probably includes both 2.6.15 and 2.6.14
> and all older kernels in the current state of things.
The bug, really, is in the invocation. And perhaps powerpc.mk,
ppc.mk, and ppc64.mk may need changes to ensure everything works
correctly, and I'll install new versions of those files as soon as
you send them to me.
manoj
--
Men have as exaggerated an idea of their rights as women have of their
wrongs. E.W. Howe
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: