On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 16:55 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 12:51 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 11:27 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 23:13 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > You shouldn't need to specify the config files at all.
> > > > [...]
> > > > This looks just the same as for armel and armhf... except using Image
> > > > instead of zImage. Let me see what I can do to clean up these per-arch
> > > > rules so this duplication isn't needed.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Rebased version attached.
> >
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Thanks. I'm not going to push it now since the build-deps cannot be
> satisfied yet and arm64 is using the existing minimal support for
> linux-libc-dev, so I don't want to break that. (TBH not sure how that
> works now, perhaps some build profile stuff I'm not seeing/don't
> understand).
It's not being auto-built now. However it is true that you can build
linux-libc-dev using 'dpkg-buildpackage -aarm64 -B -d' whereas that
won't work if the kernel image is added.
There is a rule to build just linux-libc-dev:
make -f debian/rules.gen binary-libc-dev_arm64
but you would then have to bodge a changes file for it.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part