Hi Matthias, On Oct 11, 2011, at 14:24, Matthias Klose wrote: > why use graphite at all for the stage1 build?
Well, this isn't really the stage1 build of GCC. When bootstrapping an architecture I want to avoid rebuilding packages as much as possible, which means that I want a "final-stage" GCC that runs on my target as soon as possible. So by this point, I have already built: cross-binutils linux-libc-headers cross-gcc-stage1 cross-eglibc-stage1 (headers and fake libc.so) cross-gcc-stage2 cross-eglibc-stage2 (without libssp support) cross-gcc-final Then I need to cross-compile all of the Essential:yes packages, as well as the build-essential dependencies, which includes GCC, plus enough other packages to break build-dependency loops: base-files, base-passwd, ncurses, binutils, gzip, zlib, gmp, mpfr4... Unfortunately I can't rebuild GCC on the target system until I have all of its build-dependencies, which is a *lot*. To minimize the amount that needs to be rebuilt again afterwards, the GCC needs to be totally complete for the purposes of compiling other packages. Since graphite is technically necessary for a fully-featured GCC, but the SWI-Prolog support for ppl is not, that's where I chose to break the dependency chain. Unfortunately I don't know GCC well enough to determine how graphite support affects the builds of any other Debian package builds. Any additional insight is much appreciated, thanks!\ Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Curious about my work on the Debian powerpcspe port? I'm keeping a blog here: http://pureperl.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
