Thorsten Glaser
2012-Jun-11 18:02 UTC
[klibc] Bug#677087: klibc: produces 64-bit binaries on i386 with x86_64 kernel
Sven Joachim dixit:>Building klibc on i386 with an x86_64 kernel produces packages >containing 64-bit binaries. While this can be avoided by running the >build process under "setarch i386", it is not nice.Or ?linux32?. And I believe that programmes can have a reasonable expectation that $(uname -p) matches what gcc will produce by default ? I cursed like a sailor when Apple broke that, first. Let?s not follow. So please, when running i386 builds, always do that in a (faked) i386 environment. That being said, maybe we _should_ always set ${ARCH}? bye, //mirabilos -- 13:37??Natureshadow? Deep inside, I hate mirabilos. I mean, he's a good guy. But he's always right! In every fsckin' situation, he's right. Even with his deeply perverted taste in software and borked ambition towards broken OSes - in the end, he's damn right about it :(! [?] works in mksh
Maybe Matching Threads
- klibc breakage on alpha, need porterbox
- [Bug 71035] New: EVO engine failure, probably (not?) related to EDID corruption
- To build klibc against kernel 3.4.3
- [PATCH] customize: Use setarch when running commands on i686 guest (RHBZ#1256405).
- [PATCH] customize: fix running commands on the same architecture