Control: tags -1 - patch On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:20:14AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > - the patch is incomplete. It still calls the binutils tools > for the host unprefixed.
Can you give an example here? If you mean that some dh_strip calls are not prefixed, then that's intentional. See below for why. > - the patch doesn't work for cross building cross compilers > with host != target. Can you go into more detail here? My attempts at cross building gcc always fail earlier, so I cannot test that yet. > - maybe make it clear which tools are used (target_strip, host_strip > instead of cross_strip). I did consider that but deemed it inconsistent with the rest of the packaging. We already have cross_shlibdeps, cross_gencontrol, and cross_makeshlibs. Calling it cross_strip was the obvious continuation. So cross_strip could be renamed to target_strip in principle, but we do not need host_strip at all, because using the host architecture is the default. That's also why some of the dh_strip invocations do not need to be prefixed. Is there anything wrong with this approach? > I think that the rather simplistic view of dh_strip should be addressed in > this context too, always using the non-prefixed binutils tools. In GCC you > don't have binary packages anymore with both host and target objects within > the same binary package, however this is not guaranteed for other binary > packages. So you need to find a way to strip host and target objects in the > same binary package. I believe that there is no reason to support multiple architectures in a single binary package in dh_strip. At this point we have no single user of such functionality and debhelper is supposed to cover the common case. Given these questions (yours and mine), I think that the patch should not target the -24 upload, but receive more testing with the pending packaging changes. Helmut
