[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --build and --host
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
Re: --build and --host
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:39:49 -0300
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I think you just want to specify --build, no?
*I* would be happy enough specifying --build (for autoconf 2.52+), and
sending fix for any eventual breakages that causes to upstream... But one
can count on someone getting all pissed in d-devel that we are not fixing
the whole issue at once, or that 'this entire stuff does not change anything
in *my* packages, why should I care'.
So, it will have to wait until Debian "woody" is out.
> Why do you think config.guess has to be modified?
I am not 100% sure about this yet. It _is_ the easiest, change-almost-
nothing quick-fix way. Mind you, we have a canonical source for the host
arch when building Debian packages, that is given by some of the output of
dpkg-architecture. If config.guess always returns that, configure scripts
generated by 2.13 and 2.52+ will just assume a native build with the arch we
want for ia32, and will not break on other archs either.
That will not fix the entire problem (no crosscompiling support), but it is a
quick fix I can get inside all the packages that need to be updated for
MIPS* before release, and inside all the packages that use GNU config in
time for the woody+1 Debian release.
(Such a modified config.guess script will also be faster, less prone to
breakage, and will never cause trouble on recent archs that always require
the config.* scripts to be updated. With some luck, anyway).
It is also woody+1 material, I think.
> And if you want to set up to allow cross compiling, you can do that by
> looking at DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE, as suggested by Marcus Brinkmann
> --- though he got "host" and "build" reversed.
The --host and --build needing to be reversed according to whichever
autoconf got used to produce the configure script is a major pain in the
*** in this whole issue, and what send me to this list to begin with :)
> I still think that you can fix the "build" problem and leave "host" until
I am aiming to get the entire, proper, safe fix that includes crosscompiling
support and is not an ugly hack (whatever that solution ends up being) for
woody+1, which gives me enough time to try to understand all the angles of
the problem. Right now, I think a Debian-aware config.guess plus a small
wrapper that sets --host and --build for cross-compilation is the answer.
You will be happy to know that I am smuggling the wrapper (that currently
does nothing other than call the configure script) into woody so that people
won't be able to complain that we are breaking source-compatibility with
woody if we go with your suggestion of a wrapper. It is called
"/usr/bin/configurewrapper", and belongs to the autotools-dev package right
now. Yes, the name is ugly on purpose (but if you have any better ideas
that don't start with dh_, send them my way. I can try to smuggle in that
change in a critical priority upload).
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
- Re: Why was handling of program_prefix changed?, (continued)
- --build and --host, Steve M. Robbins, 2002/02/14
- Re: --build and --host, Ralf Corsepius, 2002/02/14
- Re: --build and --host, Steve M. Robbins, 2002/02/14
- Re: --build and --host, Akim Demaille, 2002/02/28
- Re: --build and --host, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh, 2002/02/28
- Re: --build and --host, Steve M. Robbins, 2002/02/28
- Re: --build and --host,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <=