[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#911170: swish++ FTCBFS: builds for the wrong architecture



Source: swish++
Version: 6.1.5-5
Tags: patch
User: helmutg@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap

swish++ fails to cross build from source, because it builds for the
build architecture. The easiest way of passing cross tools to make is
using dh_auto_build. Unfortunately, swish++ has a little uncommon way to
name the tools. For instance the C++ compiler is called CC and the C
compiler is called LD. The variables need to be renamed. Further down
the road, it uses the wrong strip via install -s. It is best to avoid
stripping at install time as that breaks generation of -dbgsym packages.
The attached patch fixes all of that and makes swish++ cross buildable.
Please consider applying it.

Helmut
diff --minimal -Nru swish++-6.1.5/debian/changelog swish++-6.1.5/debian/changelog
--- swish++-6.1.5/debian/changelog	2017-08-12 06:47:44.000000000 +0200
+++ swish++-6.1.5/debian/changelog	2018-10-16 18:16:46.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+swish++ (6.1.5-5.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Fix FTCBFS: (Closes: #-1)
+    + Let dh_auto_tools pass cross tools to make.
+    + Supply unsual variables such as C++ compiler as CC.
+    + Defer all stripping to dh_strip.
+
+ -- Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de>  Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:16:46 +0200
+
 swish++ (6.1.5-5) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * QA upload.
diff --minimal -Nru swish++-6.1.5/debian/rules swish++-6.1.5/debian/rules
--- swish++-6.1.5/debian/rules	2017-08-12 06:07:33.000000000 +0200
+++ swish++-6.1.5/debian/rules	2018-10-16 18:16:46.000000000 +0200
@@ -20,9 +20,6 @@
 else
 CFLAGS += -O2
 endif
-ifeq (,$(findstring nostrip,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
-install_program += -s
-endif
 
 include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make
 
@@ -42,8 +39,7 @@
 
 build-stamp: configure-stamp
 	dh_testdir
-	# Add here commands to compile the package.
-	$(MAKE)
+	dh_auto_build -- 'LD:=$$(CC)' 'CC:=$$(CXX)'
 	touch build-stamp
 
 clean: unpatch

Reply to: