Re: [MiNT] Wrong placement of cross binaries

[Paul Wratt <paul.wratt@gmail.com>]

2010/2/16 Vincent Rivière <vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr>:
> Miro Kropacek wrote:
>>
>> Because look at your example, how ./configure should know when you're
>> preparing distribution package (i.e. native one) or when just installation
>> for your cross environment? In both cases there's --host the same, only
>> --prefix is different.
>
> Oh, you are right. configure can't know.
> Well, there is probably no clean way to build a library package to be used
> in a cross-compiler environment.
> In the library packages I have built until now, I have manually built and
> installed only the files required in a cross-environment. But in any case,
> this is a packaging hack.
> This kind of questions should be asked to the autoconf mailing list ;-)
>
> When I started to work on the cross-packages, I finally understood that
> there was rarely a clean way to do the packaging. So I started writing build
> scripts with dirty methods. Then I can improve the scripts from time to
> time, when I learn new stuff.
> But I'm afraid we will never find a clean, systematic procedure to build any
> package.
> In any case, if we are able to build clean binary packages even with dirty
> methods, it is not so bad.
>
> --
> Vincent Rivière
>

You could always work with a second target, besides m68k-atari-mint,
something you could test or have a use for would always be better, but
as long as is can be tested and checked by other, anything would do

It would just make the creation of cleaner scripts possible in the
initial development phase, and anyone who has seen or coded make or
configure scripts will know that multiple support often ends up being
complex, and requires in depth of script and target, often still
containing dirty methods, but usually limited to per target (by the
time it is considered clean-ish)

BTW thanks for the update on the packaging and building process (libs
for cross & native, etc)

Paul