On 27/03/14 08:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86 >>>> binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is >>>> expected to be not a part of any cross-compile toolchain, but a part of >>>> the native toolchain for the machine's secondary native ABI. Especially >>>> when i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is in /usr/bin. >>> sure, and it works just fine when you use the correct toolchain. if the >>> user wants to build an ABI using their default toolchain, they can pass >>> the right ABI flag for it. >> They can't pass the right ABI flag because only the core parts of the >> toolchain have the concept of an ABI flag. >> >> Sure, binutils and gcc respect "-m32". But what about pkgconfig (and its >> clones pkgconf and pkgconfig-openbsd)? What about the *-config tools for >> various libraries? Are you going to patch all of them to respect "-m32"? > pkg-config does need fixing in some way. we already know this. it's why the > multilib eclasses currently set PKG_CONFIG_XXX vars -- preciously so the > correct ABI dir is utilized. and this breaks when using some build systems > (like scons) where the env gets blown away (although we also know scons > sucks).
I pushed 0.28-r1 of dev-util/pkgconfig with ABI_X86 support so that you can directly call eg. i686-pc-linux-gnu-pkg-config to search from /usr/lib32/pkgconfig/ I'll try to figure something out for pkgconfig-openbsd too. Don't care about pkgconf. > i don't care about the *-config scripts. that's a dead concept long ago > proven to suck and anything still using it needs fixing. > nod
