Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-23 Thread Neil Williams
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:46:24 +1030 Ron wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:23:22PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > > The rationale is, things like arm and uclibc have many possible variants, > > > and we cannot possibly provide them all by default. > > > > archtable.d/ was meant for this suppor

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-23 Thread Ron
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:23:22PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:08:45 +1030 > Ron wrote: > > The other issue related to this was some mechanism to permit local > > definitions to be maintained in ostable and triplettable. > > /etc/dpkg-cross/archtable.d/ could be extended

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-22 Thread Hector Oron
Hello, > gcc is still lacking some patches to properly support building using > the multiarch dirs, Aurélien Jarno said he would be preparing some > patches for which Matthias Klose agreed to include (at least agreed with > the idea behind the patches). > > Once we have a working toolchain we can

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-22 Thread Neil Williams
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:08:45 +1030 Ron wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:24:34AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:47 +0200 > > Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > > > 3. Any renaming issues or other changes required in the current package? > > > > > > There's the arch name

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-19 Thread Ron
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:24:34AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:47 +0200 > Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > 3. Any renaming issues or other changes required in the current package? > > > > There's the arch name divergences, from the IRC logs, I think most > > should just b

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-19 Thread Neil Williams
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:47 +0200 Guillem Jover wrote: > > 3. Any renaming issues or other changes required in the current package? > > There's the arch name divergences, from the IRC logs, I think most > should just be removed and the ones from dpkg-architecture used > instead. If those need f

Re: Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-18 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 13:44:30 +, Neil Williams wrote: > dpkg-cross 2.4.0 is now in unstable and has had a lot of outdated > cruft removed during the Lenny freeze. I'd like to start the process of > removing dpkg-cross itself and providing all functionality via > dpkg/dpkg-dev. To refresh

Merging dpkg-cross into the dpkg source

2009-02-18 Thread Neil Williams
dpkg-cross 2.4.0 is now in unstable and has had a lot of outdated cruft removed during the Lenny freeze. I'd like to start the process of removing dpkg-cross itself and providing all functionality via dpkg/dpkg-dev. Questions: 1. Should dpkg-cross remain as a discrete executable or as functionali