On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:10:16PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > In any case, I looked into prototyping this suggested move as a patch to > the gcc packaging. I am attaching a proof-of-concept of this, but I'm > not particularly fond of it as it noticeably increases the packaging > complexity. I am adding a lot of "addons" and pull a bit of code from > various debian/rules.d/binary-*.mk to a new > debian/rules.d/binary-forhost.mk such that prefixes that were only used > in a particular file are now spread to multiple. For instance, all > ?_gdc_* variables were contained in debian/rules.d/binary-d.mk earlier > and are now spread out to debian/rules.d/binary-forhost.mk. This move is > rooted in the fact that inclusion of debian/rules.d/binary-*.mk is > conditionalized. > > So initially, I am more interested in figuring out whether this is the > right direction and as a secondary question conditional to the answer of > the first, how to improve the patch to make that work.
I have added this patch to rebootstrap now and it has generally improved bootstrapping. In particular, gcc-N-for-host is practically coinstallable. I am more and more convinced that this is the right direction. Do you have fundamental objections? Do you see ways to improve the patch? Helmut
