On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:52:37 -0500 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > > Shouldn't packages be using these --build and --host arguments already > > > even if not cross-building ? > > > No. There is no need to specify --build and --host if not cross-compiling. > > Er, no. There *is* a need to specify --build when not cross-compiling, if > your upstream build rules do clever things when the architecture is > detected as "i686" instead of "i386". This was the point in my previous > comment. Sorry, my reply wasn't clear. I should have added 'both': "There is no need to specify both --build and --host if not cross-compiling." or "There is no need to specify '--build and --host' if not cross-compiling." The patches that I will be submitting will set both at the same time (as I hope the original message showed). > There is no need to specify --host when not cross-compiling, and specifying > it will result in autoconf believing that the compiler should be invoked as > a cross-compiler. Sometimes this has strange side effects as well. That is what I was trying to get at. If --build == --host then don't specify both - unless you are trying to build a cross compiler at which point this whole thing gets even more confusing. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpjGD1ZqzYdU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
