Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
>>> I'm ok with a
>>> supplementary specific check for building of a cross-compiler, but not
>>> with a generic check like testing the ARCH environment variable.
>> OK, I have a solution for that - replace $ARCH with $GCC_TARGET.
>>
>> I've tested with this change to the patch for scripts/Dpkg/Shlibs.pm
>>
>> # GCC_TARGET for cross compiler builds
>> my $crossprefix = Dpkg::Arch::debarch_to_gnutriplet($ENV{GCC_TARGET}) if
>> ($ENV{GCC_TARGET});
>> ...
>>
>> I went for ARCH before because, in the context of building a cross
>> compiler, ARCH is only set at certain times. GCC_TARGET is set at the
>> beginning and is present throughout the build.
>
> If I understand you correctly, we can check for GCC_TARGET only and we
> don't need to check DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE != DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE.What's the obsession with cutting components out of the patch?? I'm confused. dpkg-shlibdeps should at least *support* the "right" way of doing things, even if the packages currently do not use that. At least it supports a migration route away from GCC_TARGET for future releases of gcc. GCC_TARGET is a hack, yes, but we need it around for older compilers that simply aren't going to get fixed. It would be nice to provide a migration path to do it TheRightWay(TM) eventually because that only means changing the latest version of gcc (probably 4.3) and we can do that in the Lenny freeze when everything else gets easier too. I don't want to have to go through all this again. GCC_TARGET is likely to be around until gcc-4.3 gets into oldstable but that's a small price to pay, IMHO. (It's been around for as long as dpkg-cross which is a decade so a bit longer isn't going to hurt.) > Is that correct and does that work ? I don't believe it is correct but it happens to work - for now. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
