Bug#845498: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#845498: Bug#845498: Bug#845498: /usr/bin/fpc-3.0.0: Provide cross-compilers

2021-02-21 Thread Abou Al Montacir
Hi Helmut,
On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 10:06 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > We already patch the compiler to call ld.bfd instead of ld, so we can change
> > thename as you wish.
> 
> Can you implement just this part and poke me once that has hit unstable?I can
> send a patch for the next step then.
I did not really patch this, but while looking for such a way to patch, I
discovered a nice command line option -XP.
This ca be used as follows:
fpc -XPx86_64-linux-gnu- myprogramfpc -Pi386 -XPi386-linux-gnu- myprogram
It should be possible to hack the default value of this CLO so that we can make
it point to the right triplet.
Does this fit your need?

-- Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Bug#845498: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#845498: Bug#845498: Bug#845498: /usr/bin/fpc-3.0.0: Provide cross-compilers

2017-12-06 Thread Abou Al Montacir
Hi All,

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 15:33 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
...
> Upstream solves this by using a different base dir. We can for instance
> replace
> /usr/lib/${DEB_PACKAGE_NAME}/${DEB_UPSTREAM_MAIN_VERSION}by/usr/lib/${FPCTARGE
> T}-${FPCARCH}/${DEB_PACKAGE_NAME}/${DEB_UPSTREAM_MAIN_VERSION}This is probably
> less intrusive, but have 2 levels of ${FPCTARGET}
I've uploaded this WE  to experimental a solution that puts files in
/usr/lib/${DEB_PACKAGE_NAME}/${DEB_UPSTREAM_MAIN_VERSION}/units/${FPCTARGET}-
${DEB_ABI}/${FPC_PACKAGE_NAME}

For example:
/usr/lib/fpc/3.0.4/units/i386-linux-base/fpmkunit

However this location of unit files produces the following Lintian errors:
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/arch-dependent-file-not-in-arch-specific-directo
ry.html

I suppose that I need to change it again to be
/usr/lib/${DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE}/${DEB_PACKAGE_NAME}/${DEB_UPSTREAM_MAIN_VERSION}
/units/${FPC_PACKAGE_NAME}
So for example
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/fpc/3.0.4/units/fpmkunit


It is now quite easy to do this after my recent changes.

Is that OK or do we need to do it other way, maybe in a simpler manner?
--
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part