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

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> 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.

There is no requirement for this package.

> 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.

That's not true.

> For instance, just imagine an amd64 build daemon auto-building the
> all-arch from source uploads only...

Autobuilding already works. Look at your Packages file.

There is no reason why an autobuilder would need to build arch:all
packages. They don't do that, and they won't do that. Trust me, I have
experience in that matter :)

> Therefore, I propose to replace "m68k-linux-gcc [!m68k]" by
> "<something else> [!m68k]".

Totally superfluous. No reason why that' be necessary.

> 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.

If miBoot can't be built on at least one architecture without any
crosscompilers, then this is probably a sane decision (although I
wouldn't want to have to do that). But that doesn't make this a bug in
emile...

Oh well.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22