Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Joey Hess wrote: > Felipe Sateler wrote: >> That defeats the purpose of autoconf, and makes much of automake's >> functionality redundant. If you are going to require automake, autoconf >> and libtool installed, why then generate the intermediate steps >> (configure and Makefile's)? Plus it defeat

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > [Eric Dorland] > > s/autoconf/automake/g > > > > The same is true of automake. > > Good thing that isn't a problem, since you don't Build-Depends: > automake, but rather Build-Depends: automake1.7 or whatever. But this creates a problem when aut

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Felipe Sateler wrote: > That defeats the purpose of autoconf, and makes much of automake's > functionality redundant. If you are going to require automake, autoconf and > libtool installed, why then generate the intermediate steps (configure and > Makefile's)? Plus it defeats another goal of autoto

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

[Eric Dorland] > s/autoconf/automake/g > > The same is true of automake. Good thing that isn't a problem, since you don't Build-Depends: automake, but rather Build-Depends: automake1.7 or whatever. Or did you mean that new uploads of automake1.7 break packages that worked with older uploads of

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:13:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I don't think canard means what you think it mean: all my > packages treat .ac files exactly like they treat .c files; and this > factual statement blows “canard” out of the water. Really, so your package runs ./configu

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:01:29 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: >> Until Debian as a whole can agree that it is important to be >> self-hosting, and to be confident enough in our autotools maintainers >> to trust their pa

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 20:09 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > > This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time, > > about things like autoconf and automake1.x, and why you should > > build-depend on them and run them every ti

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:01:29 -0400 > Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: >> > Until Debian as a whole can agree that it is important to be >> > self-hosting, and to be confident enough in our autotools

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Scribit Josselin Mouette dies 02/10/2007 hora 10:06: > > Because it proves that we are fully self-hosting, and the main > > reason _not_ to do it is the fear that we might _not_ actually be > > self-hosting. Which is something I believe we've promised our > > users, implicitly if not explicitly. >

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:01:29 -0400 Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > Until Debian as a whole can agree that it is important to be > > self-hosting, and to be confident enough in our autotools maintainers > > to trust their

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

[Josselin Mouette] > Given that especially autoconf introduces serious incompatibilities > between minor releases, this is simply not feasible because it would > trigger hundreds of FTBFS errors each time a new autoconf version is > uploaded. So it sounds like you're saying that, although we ship

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Until Debian as a whole can agree that it is important to be > self-hosting, and to be confident enough in our autotools maintainers > to trust their packages for automated builds, I don't think you should > ask David to build a who

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 20:09 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time, > about things like autoconf and automake1.x, and why you should > build-depend on them and run them every time. Because it proves that > we are fully self-hostin

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

> This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time, > about things like autoconf and automake1.x, and why you should > build-depend on them and run them every time. Because it proves that > we are fully self-hosting, and the main reason _not_ to do it is the > fear that we might

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

[Ian Jackson] > There are quite a few automated systems that rebuild Debian packages > - the buildds, my autopkgtest system, various other testers, and they > are all situations where the work done to build the cross-compiler is > not wasted: we repeat that processing precisely so that we know tha

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

David Anderson writes ("Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code"): > I'm not sure what you mean by detecting accidental breakage to the > build machinery, but that means building a full cross-compiler each > time the package is rebuilt. Currently, we

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 10/1/07, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Anderson writes ("Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled > code"): > > This provides a way to build the entire package, using only > > debian-provided packages, with a 'caching' fu

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

David Anderson writes ("Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code"): > This provides a way to build the entire package, using only > debian-provided packages, with a 'caching' functionality to avoid > having to rebuild a toolchain if a previ

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Simon Richter writes ("Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code"): > David Anderson wrote: > > But, if there is precedent, it might not be too painful to mimick > > existing cross-compiler packages to build my own. I'll see what I can > >

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

> not if you build-depend on oldpackge | gcc-source and just build the > firmware again if the old package is not available. Well, I just learned that this is broken. #403246, which is obviously not planned to be fixed soon. -- Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Just a quick summary of the current status of the package, following these discussions and work on #debian-python. The package python-pynxt now build-depends on python-pynxt || (gcc-4.2-source && binutils-source). If python-pynxt is available, the flash_driver.bin blob is obtained by copying it ou

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 30 September 2007 00:25, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> What about the following plan: > > It's not only pointless, but will also result in FTBFS errors once the old > package is not available anymore. not if you build-depend on oldpackge | gcc-source and just

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Hi, On Sunday 30 September 2007 00:25, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > What about the following plan: It's not only pointless, but will also result in FTBFS errors once the old package is not available anymore. regards, Holger pgpZzFKDNDyYQ.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Sep 30, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - the first version of the package will build-dep. on the gcc source, > build the compiler and build the firmware. > - all new versions of the package will build-depend on the old package > and just copy the binary blob from it. > > Any object

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 12:25:51AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > What about the following plan: > > - the first version of the package will build-dep. on the gcc source, > build the compiler and build the firmware. > - all new versions of the package will build-depend on the old package > and just

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Hi, > In this case the firmware image distributed as a blob in the source > package can be built using the gcc-4.3-source package to create a > crosscompiler (there is no requirement to have a single-step procedure). What about the following plan: - the first version of the package will build-de

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Sep 28, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) Ship a built copy of the code in the package's .diff.gz, and DTRT > > at package creation time to move the .bin from debian/ to the right > > place in the staging tree. The source code for the .bin is in > > .orig.tar.gz, under a free licens

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Hi, > I'm working on infrastructure to aid generation of cross-compiler > packages (a templating mechanism that generates the necessary Package > stanzas in debian/control from another file that uses a descriptive > language; "debian-xcontrol" would be the package you are looking for, > however th

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Hi, David Anderson wrote: But, if there is precedent, it might not be too painful to mimick existing cross-compiler packages to build my own. I'll see what I can do. Please coordinate any such effort with [EMAIL PROTECTED] :-) I'm working on infrastructure to aid generation of cross-compiler

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 9/28/07, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pro: feels like the Right Way, in a perfect world. Cons: opens the > > floodgates of packaging cross-compilers, likely requires > > additions/modifications to packaging tools, and takes way more time > > than I'm personally ready to put into pa

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

David Anderson writes ("Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code"): > 2) Package an arm7 cross-compiling gcc with just the right set of > options, integrate that with the packaging tools, and then package > with a Build-Depends on the cross-compiler. > > Pro:

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 9/27/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is the way to go unless you get some concrete objections. > There is certainly precedent - see for instance the ia32-libs / > amd64-libs packages (which are frowned upon for whole different > reasons). [replying here, but this

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Julien BLACHE wrote: >> Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I think we need a change in policy for handling cases where free >>> software requires free software in order to compile which is, non the >>> less, non buildable on the same pla

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Julien BLACHE wrote: > Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think we need a change in policy for handling cases where free >> software requires free software in order to compile which is, non the >> less, non buildable on the same platform. > > It exists already, it's called the cont

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we need a change in policy for handling cases where free > software requires free software in order to compile which is, non the > less, non buildable on the same platform. It exists already, it's called the contrib section of the archive. JB.

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

David Anderson wrote: > Therefore, question: how should I get from this situation to having a > working .deb (including the cross-compiled driver), while at the same > time playing nicely with Debian packaging policies? > In the general case, the problem is much wider. Let me give you an example

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:59:16AM +0200, David Anderson wrote: > 1) Ship a built copy of the code in the package's .diff.gz, and DTRT > at package creation time to move the .bin from debian/ to the right > place in the staging tree. The source code for the .bin is in > .orig.tar.gz, under a free l

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:38:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > (Otherwise, you'd be building the arch: all package from the binary-arch > rule on arm only; this would work, but cause brain-twistiness wrt the > separation between arch: all and arch: any.) sbuild does not allow this. Bastian --

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 9/27/07, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 4) Give up and stay away from the Debian main repositories, just put > > the package up on a private package repository. > > Please don't choose this way to solve the problem. Lego Mindstorms are > used a lot for education, including universi

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:59:16AM +0200, David Anderson wrote: [how best to package a stub for which the cross-compiler isn't in Debian] [possible solution 1] > 1) Ship a built copy of the code in the package's .diff.gz, and DTRT > at package creation time to move the .bin from debian/ to the rig

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 9/27/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The other possibility that was mentioned was to split the firmware out > > into a separate source package that produces an Arch: all package and > > then ensure that it is built on arm. > > > People in the channel had no idea if this would

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:43:17PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > I think that perhaps Paul meant to say an arch any package. If the code > must always be compiled for a particular flavor of ARM processor, > regardless of the host architecture of the machine which will be > controlling th

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:38:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:11:40AM +1000, Paul Wise wrote: > > On 9/27/07, David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Possible solutions that we came up with on #debian-mentors: > > > The other possibility that was mentioned

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:11:40AM +1000, Paul Wise wrote: > On 9/27/07, David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Possible solutions that we came up with on #debian-mentors: > The other possibility that was mentioned was to split the firmware out > into a separate source package that produce

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

> 4) Give up and stay away from the Debian main repositories, just put > the package up on a private package repository. Please don't choose this way to solve the problem. Lego Mindstorms are used a lot for education, including universities, as it is just very easy to build objects with Lego bric

Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

On 9/27/07, David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Possible solutions that we came up with on #debian-mentors: The other possibility that was mentioned was to split the firmware out into a separate source package that produces an Arch: all package and then ensure that it is built on arm. Pe

Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code

[I've only just subscribed, please forgive me if I got something horribly wrong] Hello, I was redirected here for advice from #debian-mentors, following a packaging question I have. The short summary: I'd like to package a library which requires a tiny blob of cross-compiled code to run, and don'