>> The question is >> >> /arm-linux-gnu/lib/libfoo.so > l> /usr/arm-linux-gnu/[usr/]lib/libbla.so >> /usr/arm-linux-gnu/[usr/]include/foo.h >> >> or >> >> /lib/arm-linux-gnu/libfoo.so >> /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnu/libbla.so >> /usr/include/arm-linux-gnu/foo.h >> >> It has always been a question of where to put the tripplet, not >> whether or not to have an extra subdir below that. Although I'm >> against the subdirs. No need to duplicate that this is "usr". > > I'd agree - [usr] below $arch-linux-gnu appears redundant to me. The > only difference between /lib and /usr/lib/ relates to the libraries > required to boot before /usr is mounted. That reasoning doesn't apply > to toolchain issues. >
When building cross compilers, it is recommended to use sysroot, and it demands that [usr/]include, but not for lib nor bin. So, from my PoV i would move include/ to usr/include/ in dpkg-cross. And for the multiarch design, i would keep what mainstream binutils, gcc has designed. So if we want to have a multilib'd cross compiler, we need to add that unsignificant [usr/] other way we need to fool arround patching stuff and not being mainstream compatible. Another issues i am thinking about are the emul/ia32-linux i believe that is scheduled to disapear soon and we are also forgetting mips tri-arch. I have updated http://wiki.debian.org/toolchain-multiarch with posible paths, please feel free to edit. Regards -- Héctor Orón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
