On Mon, Sep 19, 2005, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005, Steve Weinreich wrote:
> >
> ...
> >Yes you are right. The issue is that configure thinks we are crosscompiling
> >under amd64-linux and bails out therefore but do not understand the reason
> >for this.
> >
> >>2. I'm very unhappy that this hack for this single platform
> >> is such intrusive to our GCC package. A patch of nearly 200KB and
> >> for a generated file like "configure". Rather CVS intrusive and hard
> >> to maintain. It is possible to reduce it in size? Or even better:
> >> to replace it with a single "%{l_shtool} subst"? For instance the
> >> patch seems to remove always the same piece of code. We could so
> >> something like "s/test x.gcc_no_link = xyes/false/g" and this way
> >> already reduce the patch to the first hunk (which is different).
> >
> >I have tried 3 other patches before which failed all later in the build
> >process. In the gentoo build for gcc 3.4.3.20050110-r2 the Configure.ac is
> >modified and a autoreconf called afterwards which also doesn't work for me.
> >The first working patch was the patch which i have checked in which is
> >indeed huge and ugly, but it worked in the first place.
>
> I haven't looked closely at the gcc source tree in quite a while,
> however if it uses the standard gnu autoconf, automake, etc., you
> might solve the problems by running aclocal, then autoconf to
> rebuild the configure file.
That's unfortunately not possible because it would make "gcc" depend on
"autoconf". And we have to keep the "openpkg" -> "make" -> "binutils" ->
"gcc" path to support fast bootstrapping via "openpkg-tools".
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
