On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:05:53PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > associated stuff; is it appropriate to use dpkg-cross to get these? > > > > I don't know what's the best solution here. What is the procedure proposed > > upstream? > > A variety of nasty hacks, half working solutions which work some of the > time for some combinations of source and destination with some compiler > versions. > > My suggestion is to use dpkg-cross to get appropriate libraries and > point to the place it installs them, perhaps even make the dpkg-cross > installed packages included in the build dependencies. > (Anyone know of an apt-get hack for dpkg-cross so it can get and install > all dependents in the cross chain?)
OK, it seems like a decent solution, if we can get it working... > > > > This one "tpkg-make alpha" -linux will be added in the rules file. I'll add > > this to the README as well. Or shall we change it? > > Personally I'd prefer that the name is passed-as-is to the gcc/binutils > configures; because I normally know what to give those to get what I > want. I'd agree with adding the -linux in if it was for everything, > but since this package has the ability to build for things Linux won't > run on (e.g. AVR - anyone fancy a small port....) I'd rather not do it > conditionally. I can see the point in that. Do we want the package names to be gcc-avr-linux and binutils-avr-linux as well instead of simply gcc-avr and binutils-avr? -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan/
