On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 15:39 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:10:40AM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Do you think this is something that could be fixed in upstream's
> > configure or makefiles? They are very receptive to patches and
> > improvements.
>
> Partially, for one thing it *is* fixed upstream: The build system
> already separates uses of the "build" and "host" compiler (in GNU
> terminology) and calls them "HOSTCC" and "CC" (in Mozilla
> terminology).
> iproute2 actually honouring these variables (including PKG_CONFIG in
> configure) means that they put thought into this and essentially got
> this right.
>
> However this is not uniform across various Makefile projects. They
> have
> vastly differing ways to specify the naming of these tools. You get
> that
> uniformity once you move to autotools/cmake/qmake/meson. In my
> experience, the most common namings are:
> * Just use "normal" tool names and prepend each and every "host"
> tool
> with "${CROSS_COMPILE}". Typically the builder then sets
> CROSS_COMPILE=${DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE}- and things work.
> * Use plain tool names (like "CC") for the host tool and then use a
> _FOR_BUILD variant for the build tools (e.g, "CC_FOR_BUILD").
>
> Still changing HOSTCC to CC_FOR_BUILD is likely going to make some
> users
> unhappy as they will have to adapt.
>
> So maybe just leave it as is?
>
> HelmutYeah, I think we can leave it then. Thanks for checking! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
