[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping
From: |
Wookey |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Oct 2012 03:11:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
+++ Russ Allbery [2012-10-08 12:32 -0700]:
> Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
> > useful "port" to this previously unencountered target?
>
> Believe it or not, yes, frequently it does.
> Note that this is specifically in the context of Debian, which means that
> all of these platforms are Linux and they're all using glibc.
Indeed. In more than 90% of cases this is all that was required,
assuming the package cross-built at all (currently everything is
cross-built as there is no actual arm64 hardware anywhere).
yes, a proper autoreconf is better for lots of reasons but it doesn't
really make any difference for our purposes.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Eric Blake, 2012/10/08
- Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Paul Wise, 2012/10/08
- Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Paul Wise, 2012/10/08
- Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/09
- Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Russ Allbery, 2012/10/09
- Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/09
[RFC] pass #2 at getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems, Paul Wise, 2012/10/08