Steve Langasek writes: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:15:49AM -0600, Kevin Glynn wrote: > > That explains my confusion. It may well be that mozart can run on > > sparc64 but it needs testing. > > No, "sparc64" has nothing to do with this. The value returned by uname > *should* have nothing to do with this. Almost all sparc systems in use > today are 64-bit processors, but the Debian userspace port is a *32-bit* > system; and building code with gcc without specific flags gets you 32-bit > binaries, not 64-bit binaries. > > If something in mozart is looking at the uname and deciding to enable some > kind of 64-bit functionality, that's a bug in mozart. With very few > exceptions, the target that Debian packages need to be building for on sparc > is sparc-linux, *not* sparc64-linux; and your package is not one of those > exceptions, because it doesn't have any of the necessary 64-bit > build-dependencies... >
Mozart (upstream) is very anal about these things. If it meets a strange architecture it just refuses to play. We need to show it works then enable support. It would be nice if mozart just checked the functionality of the platform it is building on but it doesn't. Also, mozart is not enabling any 64-bit functionality. Sadly it runs away and hides in a corner if it even hears a rumour that the platform is 64 but ..... > > It is unfortunate that different machines in the same Debian > > architecture report that they have different underlying architectures > > .... > > You should be ignoring the output of uname altogether. I don't know if > uname is actually confusing mozart's build, but it does seem to be confusing > its maintainer. ;) > As I said in my response to the previous message I am not sure that we are ignoring the passed in architecture string during configure, but we will still break when we run certain scripts which rely on uname to find their buddies. Yours helplessly, k -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
