Re: "but ./configure makes it look so easy", or why cross compiling isn't always trivial

Peter Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Samuelson wrote: >> Of the six or so packages I'm involved with, three of them need more >> than just '--host'. (And two of the others are arch:all, so there's no >> need to cross-compile them anyway.) If that's representative, you're >> lookin

Re: "but ./configure makes it look so easy", or why cross compiling isn't always trivial

Peter Samuelson wrote: [Peter Kourzanov] For most of the packages, what is so different in cross-compilation in comparison to native? Whether or not 'configure' believes it can use tests of the form "try compiling and running this little program to see what it does". If it is cross-c

"but ./configure makes it look so easy", or why cross compiling isn't always trivial

[Peter Kourzanov] > For most of the packages, what is so different in cross-compilation > in comparison to native? Whether or not 'configure' believes it can use tests of the form "try compiling and running this little program to see what it does". If it is cross-compiling, it is forced to skip