[Debootloaders-devel] r168 - trunk/emile/debian

[Aurélien GÉRÔME]

Hi Wouter,

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 05:38:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:13:57PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > +* Do something for the unavailable package in the following field
> > +  of debian/control: Build-Depends-Indep: m68k-linux-gcc [!m68k].
> > +  Maybe we can use one of the cross-compilers the miboot team will
> > +  setup.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that. You need a cross-compiler to build it
> on non-linux, and this is the only way to express that. Apart from that,
> as long as it's built on an m68k box, it works perfectly --- that's why
> there's [!m68k] there.

Sure, no offence meant and it is quite clever to have thought of this
issue. Now, I am going to explain the rationale behind my actions
guided by my miBoot work and what I intend to do with your consent.

A requirement from the section 2.2.1 of the policy declares that
packages in main must not require a package outside of main for
compilation or execution.

Nevertheless, the package m68k-linux-gcc is not in main. Moreover,
emile-bootblocks is an arch-all package and, as such, it must be
buildable on all architectures Debian supports. For instance, just
imagine an amd64 build daemon auto-building the all-arch from source
uploads only... Therefore, I propose to replace "m68k-linux-gcc
[!m68k]" by "<something else> [!m68k]".

The miboot source package will also produce at least an arch-all
package. We will need 2 cross-compilers for m68k-unknown-elf and
powerpc-ibm-aix4.1 targets. However, from my experimentations, I
expect we can safely use m68k-linux-elf instead of m68k-unknown-elf
(i.e. the standard linux m68k cross-compiler), because miBoot first
stage is actually quite the same as EMILE first stage.

Hence, the miBoot team will package and maintain a set of
cross-compilers [1] which can be shared with EMILE when it is not built
on m68k. I would like to replace that Build-Depends-Indep by the m68k
miBoot cross-compiler. I still have not decided a name, but something
like gcc-cross-miboot-m68k and gcc-cross-miboot-powerpc was in my mind
and in Sven's too. Of course, if it is used by EMILE too, we can settle
for something more generic like gcc-cross-debootloaders-m68k. Perhaps,
we can rip the -cross part from the name too...

Anyway, I hope that you agree with the basis of my idea for EMILE to
be in conformity with the policy.

Cheers,

[1] <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debootloaders-miboot/2006-August/000021.html>
-- 
 .''`.   Aurélien GÉRÔME
: :'  :
`. `'`   Free Software Developer
  `-     Unix Sys & Net Admin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debootloaders-devel/attachments/20061101/de832ff3/attachment.pgp