Re: attached an ugly and hacky patch which allows me to build 2.6.15 on powerpc.
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?
Also, it may be possible to deduce the subarch by looking at
things like /proc/cpuinfo etc.
> 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.
manoj
--
Any man who hates dogs and babies can't be all bad. Leo Rosten, on
W.C. Fields
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: