Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
>> The toolchain does not yet look in all the right places. Neither for
>> the multiarch nor the corss-compile way of putting the prefix. It is
>> in a state where both ways are used and neither is complete enough for
>> a full system.
>
> So, would it be fine to se
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:54:38 +0100
Simon Richter wrote:
*sigh* - time to call a halt and face the problems head on.
So, let me spell things out, plain and simple.
> > >, since
> > > they have entirely different objectives
>
> > Not entirely different - the objective for the packaging tools is
Hello,
> The toolchain does not yet look in all the right places. Neither for
> the multiarch nor the corss-compile way of putting the prefix. It is
> in a state where both ways are used and neither is complete enough for
> a full system.
So, would it be fine to send an addendum to multiarch[1] d
Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
, and there is generally no need to
install anything but libraries and headers into /usr/ -- so I
don't think there is a pressing need to replicate a filesystem hierarchy
standard below a triplet directory.
>>
>>> True, however, that is not a su
Simon Richter writes:
> Hi,
>
>> >, since
>> > they have entirely different objectives
>
>> Not entirely different - the objective for the packaging tools is
>> actually the same, to have packages install cleanly without changes on
>> systems with a different architecture triplet.
>
> I'm not sur
Hi,
> >, since
> > they have entirely different objectives
> Not entirely different - the objective for the packaging tools is
> actually the same, to have packages install cleanly without changes on
> systems with a different architecture triplet.
I'm not sure this can be achieved at all, as we
Hello,
>>> , and there is generally no need to
>>> install anything but libraries and headers into /usr/ -- so I
>>> don't think there is a pressing need to replicate a filesystem hierarchy
>>> standard below a triplet directory.
>
>> True, however, that is not a sufficient reason to not
>> move
Hello Simon,
> As far as I've understood, --with-sysroot gives the path to the target OS
> installation so the build can run "fixincludes" and add it to the search
> paths; since it should work with a largely unmodified snapshot of the
> target OS, they are pretty tolerant with the directory layou
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 07:54:49PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> > install anything but libraries and headers into /usr/ -- so I
> > don't think there is a pressing need to replicate a filesystem hierarchy
> > standard below a triplet directory.
> That is what GNU people expect when building c
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:39:11 +0100
Simon Richter wrote:
> I think treating cross-building as largely orthogonal to supporting
> multiple runtime ABIs on the same system isn't the worst of ideas
Maybe not, but it isn't a sustainable idea.
>, since
> they have entirely different objectives
Not e
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> /{include,bin,lib,lib64}
> Mainstream code expects a different layout more LHS compliant,
> /{usr/include,bin,lib,lib64}
"usr/include" looks horribly wrong to me, since it cannot be achieved in a
cross build by changing the -
Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
> I have been talking with Guillem on IRC, he has point me to a
> reference[1], that might be useful.
>
> [1] http://lackof.org/taggart/hacking/multiarch/
>
> Regards
That is a nice non Debian specific writeup (i.e. it doesn't go into
any of the implementation de
Hector Oron writes:
> 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.
This is still hardcoded in the ia64 kernel. So at least a link for it
must remain at least on ia64.
Apart from that we the
Neil Williams writes:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:31:03 +0100
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> > I thought mulitarch wanted:
>
> (this is making a lot more sense now.)
>
> So, updating:
>
>> > /usr/
>> > |-- include/
>> > | `-- $arch-linux-gnu/
>> > | `-- foo.h
>> >`-- l
Hello Simon,
> install anything but libraries and headers into /usr/ -- so I
> don't think there is a pressing need to replicate a filesystem hierarchy
> standard below a triplet directory.
That is what GNU people expect when building cross tools, they use a
switch called sysroot for it and it is
Hello,
I have been talking with Guillem on IRC, he has point me to a
reference[1], that might be useful.
[1] http://lackof.org/taggart/hacking/multiarch/
Regards
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@list
>> 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 wher
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:31:03 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I thought mulitarch wanted:
(this is making a lot more sense now.)
So, updating:
> > /usr/
> > |-- include/
> > | `-- $arch-linux-gnu/
> > | `-- foo.h
> >`-- lib/
> > `-- $arch-linux-gnu/
> >
Neil Williams writes:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:50:19 +0100
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> >
>> > [*]
>> > I have been looking lately into making some cross toolchain
>> > improvements, one of them will be to change to a sysrooted cross
>> > toolchain, but the current layout we are using b
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:50:19 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > [*]
> > I have been looking lately into making some cross toolchain
> > improvements, one of them will be to change to a sysrooted cross
> > toolchain, but the current layout we are using by dpkg-cross installs
> > relevant
Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
> [*]
> I have been looking lately into making some cross toolchain
> improvements, one of them will be to change to a sysrooted cross
> toolchain, but the current layout we are using by dpkg-cross installs
> relevant bits under:
> /{include,bin,lib,lib64}
> M
Hello,
[*]
I have been looking lately into making some cross toolchain
improvements, one of them will be to change to a sysrooted cross
toolchain, but the current layout we are using by dpkg-cross installs
relevant bits under:
/{include,bin,lib,lib64}
Mainstream code expects a different layo
22 matches
Mail list logo
