question about dependance on 'logically inconsistant' packages
I'm developing and intend to package a script which will generate a base
cross-compiling environment. This requires that a binutils package and a
compiler be generated for cross-compiling. I've already spoken with the
binutils maintainer (a few weeks ago) about it, and agreed that building a
custom-arch binutils as needed would be more appropriate than binutils
being autobuilt for EVERY arch we support. I asked him this question, but
I haven't heard anything back yet..
My script depends on 'dpkg-cross'. Unfortunately, the dir for dpkg-cross
to put the processed other-arch packages is an admin configuration, and
the gcc cross-compiler package (I plan on making a minor hack to the
'gcc-m68k-linux' debian/ dir as I'm not up to snuff to redesign it ATM)
requires that dpkg-cross place it's processed packaged into under /usr.
The default for dpkg-cross is /usr/local.
Would it be acceptable if dpkg-cross had an option that my script could
use to place the processed packages into /usr (actually into
/usr/<arch>-linux) where gcc will expect them to be, or must I inform the
admin that he must change his directory to /usr or the cross-compiler will
not work?
Or might dpkg-cross be changed to remove that configuration and place the
packages under /usr? The only argument I know of is from dpkg-cross'
README, which states that /usr/local is chosen because the packages are
not part of the standard distribution. However.. the corresponding
binutils package is installed under /usr, and the gcc-m68k-linux package
EXPECTS the headers dpkg-cross installs to be under /usr.
Reply to: