On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 23:07:28 +0000, Wookey wrote: > On 2007-02-22 18:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Well spotted. That is indeed the offending bit. dpkg-architecture now seems > to give the right answers.
Perfect! > That has revealed that dpkg-cross needed armel support, which I've done, > but that raises some questions about definitive arch-names, and > dpkg-architecture -L. I'll post another mail about that. I think the correct thing to do is to merge dpkg-cross into dpkg itself, and I'm willing to start discussing what's needed from dpkg side to start incrementaly merging the functionality. Nikita, Neil? > And that reveals some problems in the existing gcc-4.1-4.1.1ds2 patch > (armel/armeb are used as a CPU name in rules.def, but they aren't so > the wrong things try to get built). I've fixed that, and will post > all three patches once a finished cross-compiler pops out with no > further probs. Yeah the cpu name should not change with the port name. ;) As I told Riku I think the binutils patch might be wrong as well, but I've not had the time to review it properly. > > Unfortunately I'll not go to FOSDEM this year. > > There was no Lennert either (SFAICS). Despite these lacks it was still > excellent. That's what I've heard. =) regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
