From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from void-ptr.info (unknown [185.44.68.223]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94FB3385782E for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 16:34:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 94FB3385782E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=void-ptr.info Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ptr@void-ptr.info Received: from ptr by void-ptr.info with local (Exim 4.94-23-08f2e6366) (envelope-from ) id 1llwUG-0003Ge-46; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:34:28 +0300 Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 19:34:28 +0300 From: Petr Ovtchenkov To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=89rico?= Nogueira Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] support cross compilation Message-ID: <20210526163428.2888e7ef@void-ptr.info> In-Reply-To: References: <20210526135850.1b967be8@void-ptr.info> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3570.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, MAY_BE_FORGED, RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Elfutils-devel mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:34:31 -0000 On Wed, 26 May 2021 12:41:51 -0300 =C3=89rico Nogueira wrote: >=20 > Yes, we really cross. It doesn't matter because > We always use the release tarballs, which already have the %_dis.h > files. This explains why we haven't hit any issues. > Anyway, couldn't you (re)use the distribution tarball generation stuff > for cross setups from git master? I can. But I haven't problems with building it "directly from VCS" too, as you see. Nevertheless there are opinion that code from VCS could be smoothly building without procedures behind scene. > Otherwise this would add a > dependency on autoconf-archive for anyone generating the configure > script locally... Well, anyone who generate configure locally has it. Otherwise it is a big pain ;). > I think a final version of this patch should > document the autoconf-archive requirement, if it's merged. May be addition of m4/ax_prog_cc_for_build.m4 make sense? Best regards, -- - ptr