| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 21 October 2009 07:34:18 Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tuesday 20 October 2009 09:06:29 Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> As I'm building the toolchain myself too, I configure it with the |
| 6 |
>>>> 32bit host triplet on each platform, usually disabling multilib. |
| 7 |
>>> this doesnt make any sense to me |
| 8 |
>> What exactly doesn't make sense to you: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> it doesnt make sense to build your own toolchain when the default native one |
| 11 |
> Gentoo provides includes all multilib support already. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> but i guess when you're commercially developing a binary-only package, people |
| 14 |
> tend to not have such freedoms as the binary-only mentality infects all |
| 15 |
> layers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Even if it's commercially, it isn't binary-only here. But it is bound |
| 18 |
to a specific set of (likely older) toolchain versions usually not |
| 19 |
available on the target system. |
| 20 |
I just don't want to make an exception for Gentoo Linux hosts when it |
| 21 |
does work on both RedHat and SuSE Linux as well as *nix. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>>>> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system |
| 24 |
>>>> be compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system? |
| 25 |
>>> your description of "compatible" is pretty vague. ignoring /lib -> |
| 26 |
>>> /lib64 symlink (which shouldnt matter to any binaries), i'm not aware of |
| 27 |
>>> any differences off the top of my head. |
| 28 |
>> Well, "compatible" here means to me that when I do |
| 29 |
>> $ configure --{build,host}=i686-pc-linux-gnu |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> assuming you simply forgot the forcing of -m32 here, or you have a fully named |
| 32 |
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-... toolchain |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I do (like to) have a fully qualified i686-pc-linux-gnu-* toolchain. |
| 35 |
Adding -m32 would require to create the i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc wrapper, |
| 36 |
resulting in some kind of a fully qualified i686 toolchain again. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>> It turns out that it is the "/lib resolving to 64bit" thing only that |
| 39 |
>> causes me headaches here, which actually is distro-specific. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> i'm not against changing things to fall in line with what other distros have |
| 42 |
> settled on (guess that's the risk you take when you're one of the first |
| 43 |
> distros to do multilib), i just want this kind of decision to be fully |
| 44 |
> informed / thought out before making it. it's not something i'd label |
| 45 |
> "trivial". |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Fully agreed. But as I don't have time to carry on this symlink change, |
| 48 |
I'm going to live with the patches for now (in Prefix). |
| 49 |
OTOH, Debian uses /lib->/lib64 symlink too IIRC... |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Thank you! |
| 52 |
/haubi/ |
Archives