Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
- From: Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:01:57 -0800
- Message-id: <20061101020157.GF21299@mauritius.dodds.net>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20060918065502.GA7069@mauritius.dodds.net> <20061017034207.GA5506@azure.humbug.org.au> <20061018191910.GA27020@master.debian.org> <4537A221.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20061020204012.GE8803@azure.humbug.org.au> <20061020205825.GW2651@seventeen> <20061020210537.GK12612@mauritius.dodds.net> <20061021074852.GA14409@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:09:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:52:59 +0200 (CEST), Michael Schmitz <email@example.com> said:
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:05:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:58:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> > > IIRC, the m68k kernels are already cross-compiled.
> >> > Yes, which has repeatedly caused problems due to assumptions in
> >> > the kernel packaging that host arch == build arch...
> Can someone point me to these assumptions?
The last such issue I remember was a result of the kernel building certain
tools using the host (i386) compiler which were needed for building the
remainder of the package, and then shipping those same tools in one of the
(m68k) binary packages for use by add-on module packages. Typical "does not
play well with cross-building" stuff, which may have been resolved already.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.