invocation in debian/rules.
Is there a workaround that avoids touching debian/rules? What is
the preferred way to solve this problem with dpkg-buildpackage?
TIA,
Pjotr Kourzanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russ Allbery wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please just add the recommended --host and --build makefile snippet and
feed that to configure in *all* packages. It is better in the long run,
and for many packages that is enough to have it cross-compile
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
I suppose the patches to debian/rules would be welcome on this list,
no?
I have no idea. Anyway, if you want to make sure I read something you post
in d-devel, please CC me.
ok
And what about
Dear maintainer(s),
Please consider this patch, that adds the ability to cross-compile
your package.
Regards,
Pjotr Kourzanov
--- busybox-1.01/debian/rules 2006-03-03 14:41:03.0 +0100
+++ busybox-1.01-4.my/debian/rules 2006-02-24 15:36:32.0 +0100
@@ -34,7 +34,7
Dear maintainer(s),
Please consider this patch that adds the ability to cross-compile your
package.
Regards,
Pjotr Kourzanov
--- dash-0.5.3/debian/rules 2006-03-03 14:41:09.0 +0100
+++ dash-0.5.3-2.my/debian/rules 2006-02-24 15:46:06.0 +0100
@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@
configure
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 09:17:19AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Yes, but the point was that mainteners get a warning from the
regular build system that their package is not cross-compile friendly.
That needs to hook into dpkg
-cross_0.9.27-1.my.0_all.deb
of course:-)
Good luck!
Pjotr Kourzanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before
the OS name?
Probably not. Logics however, dictate that the architecture denotes a
set much larger than that
of the OS names...
Pjotr Kourzanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2006-03-12 kello 15:49 +0100, Peter Kourzanov kirjoitti:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
I guess it just happened to seem like a good name at the time. Why, is
there a problem with the name? Does it
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
because dpkg-architecture has a line like this:
return $os-$cpu;
older dpkg (of sarge age) was more
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-13 00:04]:
I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like
i386-uclibc, which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of
having the CPU arch first and the OS name the next.
There's also
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Not being a dpkg maintainer, I find this to be a gratuitous change for
no good reason (other than it looks a bit better). I don't see what
point it would serve
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Pjotr Kourzanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
because dpkg
Riku Voipio wrote:
[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
This one looks dead.
I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
weeks ago in FOSDEM and it is already dead?
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 15:04 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Also, looking at
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=i386-uclibc
I see only binutils and gcc. In the other thread cross-compiling Debian
packages
I already mentioned that binutils and gcc
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
I think I know now what the problem is, see below...
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:41PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
As you see, I get depends with -dcv1 suffix as well as -cross
suffix.
Yes, it's exactly what it should do.
Each package
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
You have too old version of libgcc1-arm-cross, that does not provide
libgcc1-arm-dcv1 (and, btw, installs to /usr/arm-linux/)
No, that's not true. It does install into /usr/arm-linux-gnu.
I got this one from the latest gcc sources
(4.0.2-9). And it still
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is a call for help :). If you want
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:31:58AM +0100, Martin Guy wrote:
dpkg-architecture in dpkg 1.13 returns os-cpu, where os and arch are
grabbed from ostable and cputable.
Er... are we talking about different meanings of the word architecture here?
s/os and arch/os
working correctly)?
Thanks is advance!
Pjotr Kourzanov
shlib-hello-test.tgz
Description: application/compressed-tar
Volker,
Great that you've put this up to public. Still, for this to be
accepted, we need to come up with patches for apt that contain an
algorithm that will pick versions of packages matching user's
requirements, known architecture hierarchies (i386-i486-...)
and available sources. Currently,
done, I would say, except for the hierarchic
thing)
2. fix apt (TODO)
3. fix sbuild (TODO)
4. fix debian/rules (to be never completed I'm afraid)
Pjotr
Volker Grabsch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:42:40AM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Great that you've put this up to public. Still
Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
On 6/23/06, Volker Grabsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, some programs with lots of calculations (e.g. mplayer)
are compiled with different processor optimizations (e.g. mplayer-i586).
Such
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pjotr Kourzanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: kissdx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Programming Lang: (C, C++, C
25 matches
Mail list logo
