Re: attached an ugly and hacky patch which allows me to build 2.6.15 on powerpc.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 04:30:05AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:49:57 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
>
> >> > The first hunk of this patch sets ARCH=ppc again for 32bit, i am
> >> > not sure i will be going this way or not finally, since upstream
> >> > recomends me to go with ARCH=powerpc on 32bit only for 2.6.16 and
> >> > later.
> >>
> >> You are talking about KERNEL_ARCH. Sure, you are the domain expert
> >> about what the value for KERNEL_ARCH should be for all sub
> >> architectures for the DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU==powerpc.
>
> > Indeed, and we need a way to be able to specify to kernel-package
> > what the KERNEL_ARCH is supposed to be, it is clear now that --arch
> > is not used for this, so i would recomend the creation of a
> > --kernel-arch option to make-kpkg, which will allow to set
> > KERNEL_ARCH, and allow to override whatever default we did set in
> > the (ppc|ppc64|powerpc).mk snipplets.
>
> Once we know what subarch it is, why do we need to tell
> kernel-package what the KERNEL_ARCH is supposed to be? Why isn't it
> enough to know what the subarch is and thus know what the
> corresponding KERNEL_ARCH should be?
Indeed, but it is nice to be able to override KERNEL_ARCH from the default
one provided by subarch.
> Also, it may be possible to deduce the subarch by looking at
> things like /proc/cpuinfo etc.
Yes, and now, we need at least the kernel version too to make sane
assumptions, and furthermore, like said, the ARCH=foo entry can have two
possible values for 32bit 2.6.15.
> > This is i believe the missing bit here. Altough i would prefer a
> > real option, is it possible that setting the KERNEL_ARCH env var
> > will solve this issue, but will it properly override the
> > (ppc|ppc64|powerpc).mk snipplets default ?
>
> I would prefer getting the subarch -< kernel_arch mapping done
> right instead.
I will provide such a patch later.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: