On 4/27/06, Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/27/06, Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- /dev/null 2006-04-06 17:49:18.425220240 +0400 > > > > +++ binutils/debian/cross.postinst.in 2006-04-26 18:04:12.000000000 > > > > +0400 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ > > > > +#!/bin/sh > > > > + > > > > +#set -e > > > > + > > > > +TARGET="__TARGET__" > > > > +PREFIX="__PREFIX__" > > > > +CONFIG="/etc/dpkg-cross/crosstools" > > > > +if [ ! -d "$CONFIG" ]; then > > > > + echo "No dpkg-cross found" > > > > + exit 0 > > > > +fi > > > > + > > > > +grep "^$TARGET" $CONFIG > /dev/null 2>&1 > > > > + > > > > +if [ "$1" == "configure" -a $? -ne 0 ]; then > > > > + echo "$TARGET strip default $PREFIX-strip" >> $CONFIG > > > > +fi > > > > > > What for is this? > > > Shouldn't dpkg-cross find needed strip binary automatically? > > > > It fails at least for some cases and this forces correct strip tool > > for a given architecture. > > With your approach, it will fail if dpkg-cross is installed later than > cross-binutils. It checks if /etc/dpkg-cross exists in the very beginning, so simply won't do anything. And we can add a dependency on dpkg-cross to cross binutils.
> Maybe better to fix dpkg-cross? Do you have test cases that fail? Indeed, I'll have a proper look later on and provide test cases. -- I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
