linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] deb-pkg: fix cross-compile build

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 19:50:07 -0700
From:	Robert Gordon <robert@...enroomsoftware.com>
To:	Nuno Subtil <subtil@...il.com>
CC:	maximilian attems <max@...o.at>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] deb-pkg: fix cross-compile build

On 5/12/11 12:45 PM, Nuno Subtil wrote:
>> The debian/control file for an unpatched scripts/package/builddeb would
>> assign 'i386' instead of 'amd64'.
>
> That seems wrong to me. Were the resulting packages actually usable on amd64?

I modeled my patch after behavior I saw in the unpatched script.  I had 
also originally set x86_64 to amd64 with the exact results I get with 
your patch.  So, I looked at what the unpatched kernel was doing, which 
is putting i386 in those fields when building for x86_64 on an i386 
machine.  I don't know the results would actually run because I don't 
have an x86_64 myself.  It may not run, but it does build.

cheers!

-- 
*www.greenroomsoftware.com*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/