> > As you see, I get depends with -dcv1 suffix as well as -cross suffix.
Yes, it's exactly what it should do. Each package xxx-arm-cross package created with dpkg-cross >= 1.26 will Provide: xxx-arm-dcv1. In your case, this will not allow libc6-arm-cross created by older dpkg-cross to satisfy dependency - while libc6-arm-cross created by dpkg-cross >= 1.26 will satisfy it. And that's correct, because previously dpkg-cross installed files info /usr/arm-linux/, and now it will install files to /usr/arm-linux-gnu/ - so libc6-arm-cross created by older dpkg-cross can't satisfy the dependency. > The need for versioning does not justify IMHO the uglyness of > -dcv1 when compared to -cross. And it just "feels" wrong, since it is > not the type or instances of the files in the package that changed, > but the "packaging" of these files... Why couldn't you solve that > with version strings? I don't see how version string can be safely used here - because version strings from original debs are already used to handle dependences. There are two different dependency requirements - one that original packages should have version not less than ..., and other - that dpkg-cross should be fresh enough to place files inside new tree. I don't see way to use single version strings to handle both things. > > > Also, would you welcome patches that add the ability to handle > > > packages built with alternative libc > > > implementations, namely uClibc, Dietlibc and Newlib? > > > > Your patches are welcome. > > > > I thought that best way to handle other libc's is introducing other > > 'architectures', like i386-uclibc. Then tools could just cross-compile > > for this 'architecture'. > > Yes, that's what I did. Please look into 'patches' at > http://www.xs4all.nl/~kurzanov/debian/. I had to patch dpkg, as well > as dpkg-cross to make it all work. Thanks, I'll look at that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
