On Mon, Jan 17, 2011, Neil Williams wrote: > Not a good change IMHO. Don't forget that this is still a dependency > of dpkg-cross. #412118 #591542
these are two bugs I filed... > Has anyone actually had time to test Joey's contention that dh_strip > is not the right solution to fix because of packages using `install > -s` in their Makefiles? If you refer to his reply in the bug, both Simon and I got back to him in this bug > Can't we just have a cross-strip package instead? That, IMHO, is the > correct fix. Strip back binutils-multiarch to only provide strip > (nicely recursive too). Then you can have all the supported > architectures and maybe even retain the full version but NOT make it > part of a default cross-building install. It could be as simple as > only packaging strip into a new binary package when building > binutils-multiarch. Providing only strip in binutils-multiarch wont help you with its size; the bulk of the size is in the bfd libs which I quoted in my original email. Besides, cross-objdump is useful in at least dpkg-shlibdeps, and I can think of good uses for cross-size, cross-readelf or cross-nm (and the obvious cross-as). > Loic: what problem did you find with dh_makeshlibs? When I tested with > the binutils package for the armel cross toolchain without > binutils-multiarch installed, I didn't get problems with > dh_makeshlibs, only with strip. Which package did you try? I think I hit it with some leaf lib package like zlib, but I'm not sure wihch one. > Can you file a new bug for that one with full details please? I'm not sure, it's the same issue as dh_strip; I could split it out, but I don't think it's worth it -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-embedded-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110117230817.gc16...@bee.dooz.org