Re: Compiling Linux kernel
On 2009-12-25 07:55 +0100, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> Sorry to send this message twice, but I thought that for some reason it
> had not arrived at the list. Although it seems that both messages
> arrived with a delay of six hours. This can be due to some moderation of
> the list?
This list is not moderated, and your messages have a very low
spamassassin score, so they should have arrived immediately. You can
look in the "Received:" headers to see where they spent the time.
>> And why in this case yes we must use these options if running an amd64
>> kernel in userland 32 is not necessary to use ARCH=x86_64 in the
>> invocations of "make" when compiling of the traditional way?
>
> Well, thinking a little more about this subject, the cause by which this
> happens perhaps is that when make-kpkg consults the general architecture
> of the system, it obtains in (b.1) as in (b.2) that is i386. For that
> reason in both cases it is necessary to use --cross-compile and --arch.
>
> Nevertheless when being used the compilation of the traditional way,
> this becomes by outside any own control of Debian and the architecture
> that will be used by default is the one of running kernel.
>
> Is correct this asseveration?
Yes, kernel-package relies on the information dpkg-architecture provides
whereas the kernel Makefile trusts "uname -m" to determine the
architecture. On systems with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland this
gives different information:
,----
| % dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH
| i386
| % uname -m
| x86_64
`----
Merry Christmas,
Sven
Reply to: