Hi Davo, answering quickly as I see you're active right now. But I'll come back on Monday on your questions in more details because they deserve answers, but I don't have much time this weekend, so going straight to the point for now.
March 27, 2021 7:20 AM, "David Bannon" <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > OK, you are way ahead of me Frédéric, please disregard my previous response. > > Great that your patch works, really cool. And thanks ! However, do you > mind if I query something ? I don't quite see why you call the - > > +if [ "$CPU" = "powerpc64le" ]; then > + CPU="powerpc64" > +fi > > AFTER the line - > > TARGET="$CPU-$OS" > > If we set TARGET after the "if" statement. the patch is heaps simpler. > And I like simple patches ... Yes, I didn't like it as well, because of the same reason and I was kinda reluctant to send and tried to justify it in the patch :) The reason I complexified this is that I wanted to keep the local objects produced into a ppc64el related directory which is what is done generally. Of course this is in the build directory so more or less temporary. Still if the patch is meant to go upstream, that could make a little bit more sense there. And, powerpc64-linux and powerpc64el-linux objects are not compatible, so same path does not make sense to me. If cross compiling or doing some other specific builds, the build directory could end up with .o overwriting each other. On the other hand, lazarus source package produces ppc64 and ppc64el and store .o for binary packages in the very same paths... and I don't really get why lazarus does this. So, if the patch remains in Debian, I think you can perfectly simplify it as you explain. I'd still be interested to understand the root "issue" in lazarus. I saw other distros have the same paths and from digging in lazarus, I didn't find in the time I had, a way to change this and to try if things still work :) That would be a question for upstream. Anyway, the simple patch works well too, that was what I did initially. I'll come back later for your other questions! F. > Now, I cannot test it here but if you can while you have a terminal to a > P8 machine, and don't have a reason for the way you have done it, could > you test please ? > > Otherwise, if you think it needs to be as per your patch, I am quite > happy to apply that. > > Do you want me to run up a new release or would you prefer to use the > patch on a Debian downstream release model ? > > Davo > > On 27/3/21 3:00 am, Frédéric Bonnard wrote: > >> Here is a patch proposal which fixes the build. >> The patch header details the issue and the possible workaround. >> Regards, >> >> F.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
