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@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.
OK, so $UTS_MACHINE is a misnomer for this and some other architectures.
I wonder whether we should be using it at all?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
DNRC Motto: I can please only one person per day.
Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
