On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:09:17PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Also the libc6-msp430-dev:all and libc6-dev:msp430 packages will both be
> >> using /usr/inlcude// and already trigger the
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:09:17PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Also the libc6-msp430-dev:all and libc6-dev:msp430 packages will both be
>> using /usr/inlcude// and already trigger the problem you
>> fear.
>
> No, libc6-msp430-dev would use /usr//include as it do
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:09:17PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > It's not that non-self-hosting archs should be treated differently from
> > self-hosted archs, but that they should be treated the *same* including the
> > requirement that multiarch directories be reserved for packages of th
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:46:40PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
>> I expect the multiarch paths to replace the 'traditional
>> cross-compiling' paths in due course for all target architectures,
>> including ones that aren't Debian-suported (i.e currently
>> mingw-whatever-you-cal
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:46:40PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I expect the multiarch paths to replace the 'traditional
> cross-compiling' paths in due course for all target architectures,
> including ones that aren't Debian-suported (i.e currently
> mingw-whatever-you-call-it, avr32, msp430), for both
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time being;
> > I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional cross-compiler
> > directories and stay away from the multiarch directories until we have more
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:46:10 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 22:46 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> [...]
> > I do think that getting the 'win32' arch name and triplet defined in
> > dpkg-architecture is stage 1 for you. I thought we'd already done that
> > years ago, when this last came
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:46:40 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Stephen Kitt [2011-04-24 19:14 +0200]:
> > > So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time
> > > being; I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional
> > > cross-compiler directories and stay away from the m
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:44:39 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
> Stephen Kitt writes:
> > So if I understand things correctly that would mean using /usr/lib/win32
> > and /usr/lib/win64, regardless of the binutils/gcc triplet (which is fine
> > as
>
> If that is what dpkg-architecture outputs.
Stephen Kitt writes:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:51:53 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:29:39PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > I would rather add a new architecture to dpkg for this. This does not
>> > mean that debian has to create a new port or that the packages
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 22:46 +0100, Wookey wrote:
[...]
> I do think that getting the 'win32' arch name and triplet defined in
> dpkg-architecture is stage 1 for you. I thought we'd already done that
> years ago, when this last came up, but obviously not.
> dpkg-architecture already supports 269 opt
+++ Stephen Kitt [2011-04-24 19:14 +0200]:
> > So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time being;
> > I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional cross-compiler
> > directories and stay away from the multiarch directories until we have more
> > practical exper
Hi Steve,
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:44:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > Unfortunately this appears to go against policy 9.1.1, which forbids
> > packages installing files into triplet-based directories under /usr/lib
> > other than /
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:51:53 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:29:39PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > I would rather add a new architecture to dpkg for this. This does not
> > > mean that debian has
Hi Stephen,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Unfortunately this appears to go against policy 9.1.1, which forbids packages
> installing files into triplet-based directories under /usr/lib other
> than /usr/lib/$(dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH). Since the fil
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:38:57 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 05:05:33AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > IIUC then the GNU triplet includes the choice of C library because
> > binaries (e.g., libraries) compiled against mingw32 and mingw-w64
> > cannot be linked (i.e., they
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:51:53 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:29:39PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I would rather add a new architecture to dpkg for this. This does not
> > mean that debian has to create a new port or that the packages have to
> > stop being arch:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:29:39PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Stephen Kitt writes:
> > Now that multiarch is here, I've been wondering whether and how it applies
> > to
> > cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures.
[...]
> > It seems to me though that it would be nice to fo
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 05:05:33AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > Such dirs cannot include the compiler's name, since there are multiple
> > compilers for the architecture. Binaries compiled with
> > i586-mingw32msvc-gcc, i686-w64-mingw32-gcc and MSVC share th
Stephen Kitt writes:
> Hello,
>
> Now that multiarch is here, I've been wondering whether and how it applies to
> cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures, for example Microsoft
> Windows (I'm the new maintainer of mingw-w64). As I understand it, multiarch
> wasn't intended for non-D
Hi,
Adam Borowski wrote:
> Such dirs cannot include the compiler's name, since there are multiple
> compilers for the architecture. Binaries compiled with
> i586-mingw32msvc-gcc, i686-w64-mingw32-gcc and MSVC share the same ABI.
>
> Even specific models of CPUs are no good: on i386, gcc -dumpmac
Stephen Kitt scrisse:
> Would it be acceptable to introduce an exception to policy allowing
> this? Something along the lines of
>
> An exception is granted for `Architecture: all' packages
> containing libraries targeting platforms for which there is no Debian
> architecture. Su
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Policy also doesn't mention /usr/include/; I saw that possibility
>> referred to in http://bugs.debian.org/542865.
>
> Uhh... this looks like a nasty omission to me. If package libfoo-dev
> differs between architectures, without that dir t
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that multiarch is here, I've been wondering whether and how it applies to
> cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures, for example Microsoft
> Windows (I'm the new maintainer of mingw-w64).
> It seems to me
Hello,
Now that multiarch is here, I've been wondering whether and how it applies to
cross-compiler libraries for non-Debian architectures, for example Microsoft
Windows (I'm the new maintainer of mingw-w64). As I understand it, multiarch
wasn't intended for non-Debian architectures, and this is (
25 matches
Mail list logo
