On 2009-12-25 07:55 +0100, Daniel Bareiro wrote: > Sorry to send this message twice, but I thought that for some reason it > had not arrived at the list. Although it seems that both messages > arrived with a delay of six hours. This can be due to some moderation of > the list?
This list is not moderated, and your messages have a very low spamassassin score, so they should have arrived immediately. You can look in the "Received:" headers to see where they spent the time. >> And why in this case yes we must use these options if running an amd64 >> kernel in userland 32 is not necessary to use ARCH=x86_64 in the >> invocations of "make" when compiling of the traditional way? > > Well, thinking a little more about this subject, the cause by which this > happens perhaps is that when make-kpkg consults the general architecture > of the system, it obtains in (b.1) as in (b.2) that is i386. For that > reason in both cases it is necessary to use --cross-compile and --arch. > > Nevertheless when being used the compilation of the traditional way, > this becomes by outside any own control of Debian and the architecture > that will be used by default is the one of running kernel. > > Is correct this asseveration? Yes, kernel-package relies on the information dpkg-architecture provides whereas the kernel Makefile trusts "uname -m" to determine the architecture. On systems with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland this gives different information: ,---- | % dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH | i386 | % uname -m | x86_64 `---- Merry Christmas, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
