| Message ID | CAGNsrLAiK88Lfz1nhZgB8FUgCDO88g462uJG+yKZ139_AZymeA@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 11:15 +0300, Fathi Boudra wrote: > On 9 June 2014 03:15, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 14:26 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 15:53 +0300, Fathi Boudra wrote: > >> > Signed-off-by: Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> > >> > >> > --- > >> > scripts/package/builddeb | 2 ++ > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb > >> > index f46e4dd..0bf29a6 100644 > >> > --- a/scripts/package/builddeb > >> > +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb > >> > @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ create_package() { > >> > debarch=hppa ;; > >> > mips*) > >> > debarch=mips$(grep -q CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y $KCONFIG_CONFIG && echo el || true) ;; > >> > + arm64) > > > > Now I'm not so sure. As we are comparing with the 'machine' name > > ($UTS_MACHINE, not $ARCH or $SRCARCH), shouldn't this actually check for > > aarch64? > > not sure. I've seen Ian comment (added to the cc list). The patch above produced the right thing when crossbuilt with ARCH=arm64. e.g. linux-image-3.14.5+_3.14.5+-2_arm64.deb With just Ben's original patch it produced linux-image-3.14.5+_3.14.5 +-2_arm.deb instead. I think UTS_MACHINE is correct because: Makefile:UTS_MACHINE := $(ARCH) and there is no override in arch/arm*/Makefile. So the kernel arch is the correct thing to use here. Ian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 09:31 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 11:15 +0300, Fathi Boudra wrote: > > On 9 June 2014 03:15, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 14:26 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > >> On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 15:53 +0300, Fathi Boudra wrote: > > >> > Signed-off-by: Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> > > >> > > >> Reviewed-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> > > >> > > >> > --- > > >> > scripts/package/builddeb | 2 ++ > > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > >> > > > >> > diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb > > >> > index f46e4dd..0bf29a6 100644 > > >> > --- a/scripts/package/builddeb > > >> > +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb > > >> > @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ create_package() { > > >> > debarch=hppa ;; > > >> > mips*) > > >> > debarch=mips$(grep -q CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y $KCONFIG_CONFIG && echo el || true) ;; > > >> > + arm64) > > > > > > Now I'm not so sure. As we are comparing with the 'machine' name > > > ($UTS_MACHINE, not $ARCH or $SRCARCH), shouldn't this actually check for > > > aarch64? > > > > not sure. I've seen Ian comment (added to the cc list). > > The patch above produced the right thing when crossbuilt with > ARCH=arm64. e.g. linux-image-3.14.5+_3.14.5+-2_arm64.deb > > With just Ben's original patch it produced linux-image-3.14.5+_3.14.5 > +-2_arm.deb instead. > > I think UTS_MACHINE is correct because: > > Makefile:UTS_MACHINE := $(ARCH) > > and there is no override in arch/arm*/Makefile. > > So the kernel arch is the correct thing to use here. OK, so $UTS_MACHINE is a misnomer for this and some other architectures. I wonder whether we should be using it at all? Ben.
--- a/scripts/package/builddeb +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ create_package() { # Attempt to find the correct Debian architecture local forcearch="" debarch="" case "$UTS_MACHINE" in - i386|ia64|alpha) + i386|ia64|alpha|arm64) debarch="$UTS_MACHINE" ;; x86_64) debarch=amd64 ;;