Hi!
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 00:00:21 +0000, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 3 December 2013 22:42, Stephen Kitt <sk...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Is there any chance the attached version could go in? It's against
> > current git, minus the previous changes to cputable which were wrong.
> >
> > Now that Debian is increasingly cross-buildable, and with sbuild and
> > cross-build-essential providing an excellent environment to work in,
> > it would be great to have mingw-w64 support in dpkg... Unless you have
> > objections of course!
Ah, nice solution/hack, although it only works because you seem to be
gaming the GNU triplet system. :)
> I've carefully reviewed the whole thread and re-reviewed the proposed patch:
>
> * vendor tag is _not_ used to encode API/ABI, GNU_SYSTEM is
> "w64-mingw32" - GOOD (agreed by everyone in the thread)
After checking the latest GNU config.git repo, it seems there's no
such system defined (with os=w64-mingw32), only <cpu>-pc-mingw32 (with
os=mingw32). So w64 is still the vendor, being shoehorned here as if
it was part of the os, which does really make sense, because mingw32
or cygwin, etc could be considered the equivalent of glibc on those
operating systems (where it is denoted as -gnu).
I'd happily accept the proposed patch if the config.{guess,sub} pair
where updated upstream in that direction (i.e. support os=w64-mingw32).
> * Debian.pm is correctly patched to disable features, which are not
> support - GOOD
> * no changes to cputable - GOOD [2]
Sure.
> Another point raised was:
> * dpkg ported to w64-mingw32
I just asked OOC, porting dpkg to a Windows environment might not be
possible with the many current Unix assumption dpkg makes.
Thanks,
Guillem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
