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/ |