[CC to debian-toolchain] Hakan Ardo writes: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > I beleve I > > > sent you a patch that would be needed for gcc3, but it has now been > > > incoperated with the main cvs source, so it's no longer needed: > > > > Yes, it's in gcc-2.95.2-18 as well. > > > > The gcc-snapshot-20001117 package does not yet have the cross compiler > > support. There will be more changes to the build procedures, so I > > think it's not worth porting the cross-compiler patch now. And then I > > have to start a discussion about Source-Depends. What I have in mind: > > Don't build the cross compilers in the gcc package, but in a > > cross-gcc-<arch> package, which expects the source package in the > > parent directory. These packages are tightly coupled, but you don't > > have to build all compilers when building the native one. > > > > Please see the debian-toolchain mailing lists for further information. > > I've been reading this list, but there dosn't seem to be happening much in > this respect. Do you think there's any chans of getting those Source-Depends > of yours implemented before the next freeze?
hmm, I really don't know ... > Otherwise I would sugest we try > to get the current solution ported to gcc-snapshot (keeping in mind that we > maybe have to pull it out later on). gcc-snapshot is now named gcc-2.97. The problem I do have is the following: acceptance of new gcc packages for all architectures. It's difficult (for example) to get the m68k maintainers to build new gcc versions. If I add yet another two or three cross compilers, this reduces acceptance to a minimum. So yes, I can include updated cross compiler support, but I won't enable it by default (at least until gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0 become final and at least one version is built for each architecture). > I noticed that you havn't you uploaded a avr-gcc package. Did you expect me > to do that? I'd be happie to if you want me to :) Is it by the way > acceptable by our policy to do this kind of binary only uploads? That would be a nice solution. Not sure if this is acceptable by policy? TARGET=avr dpkg-buildpackge ...
