On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 11:15 +0300, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On 9 June 2014 03:15, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> > ---
> >> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
