On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:05:32AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:55:16PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:38:09 +0100 (CET), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > > There has not been a consensus on several issues I have raised here:
> > > >
> > > > what to do about cross-compiler directories? Do they belong in
> > > > /usr/${arch}?
> > >
> > > I think they do. GCC explains how to build a cross-compiler, and it
> > > says /usr/local/${arch}, so /usr/${arch} would be the FHS-ish "standard".
> > > That's what every cross compiler in Debian uses, and what every cross
> > > compiler user expects. If FHS says otherwise I would say FHS is wrong.
> >
> > That's a load of crap -- what if I have two cross compilers installed?
> > Is gcc going to be given preferential treatment?
> >
> > It should be in
> >
> > /usr/lib/gcc/arch,
> > and play nicely with the othe rpakcages instead of hijacking /usr/lib
>
> wouldn't it make more sense to put it in /usr/lib/${arch}/
> or /usr/${arch}/lib ?
>
> That way its easy to look under each arch and see whats installed
> etc.
> also it will help people who run large sites, and NFS, etc stuff.
There seems to be some confusion about what this directory contains.
The directory /usr/${arch} contains for cross compilation purposes
1. binaries used for cross compilation (gcc etc) in bin
2. header files used for compilation
3. libraries used for compilation
2+3 can be symlinked into the actual root filesystem of the system you build
for. Files in 1 are symlinked to the actually symlinks to
/usr/bin/${arch}-gcc etc on my systems.
It makes perfectly sense for them to be in /usr/${arch}, or even in
/${arch}. You can for example put /usr/${arch}/bin in your path and all
build tools will cross build by default (I am not sure this is a good idea,
though, as it defeats native builds of helper programs).
Marcus
