Quoting Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > In fact, you can ask Ben, that this is where the behavior change came > > > from. After I discussed this very specific issues with Ben over the > > > course of several weeks. > > > > Why not discuss it with GCC maintainers? If you can explain the issue > > I may be able to help, though I'm probably out-of-date on the build > > process, and I'd prefer not to have to do much experimenting with > > bootstraps on the hardware available. > > By default you don't get 64-bit builds. If you do not install > libc6-dev-sparc64.
I'd argue about the "default" part. build-essential in sarge pulls in libc6-dev-sparc64. And "apt-get build-dep anything" pulls in build-essential. I only recently started making custom linux-sparc packages (our mgmt switched from Solaris/sparc+Debian/x86 to Debian on both supported hw platforms), and got bitten by this, packages would try to build 64-bit and fail (or worse, succeed :-). > Dave didn't like this, but it's a compromise we came > to just because of this very point. AFAIR, gcc on solaris-sparc defaults to 32-bit, just like Sun's WorkShop 6 cc does, so that behaviour is somewhat consistent. However they default to 32-bit even when there is 64-bit build support installed. I'm sure you've chewed on all this already, but coming from Solaris, I didn't expect the default build platform to change. Maybe it would make sense to remove libc6-dev-sparc64 from build-essential, and make something like build-essential-sparc64? This would break the build of a number of packages that need to do a 64-bit build, wouldn't it? > Even if you install libc6-dev-sparc64, you can override the default > easily by doing "touch /etc/disable_64_gcc". > > Sure it needs to be documented, in the release notes for sarge. That, however, _is_ an additional step needed to get the behaviour from our previous Solaris envirnment. Regards, Zoran
