On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 16:55 -0700, Philip A. Prindeville wrote: > You're right: that comment was much more helpful... does it apply to the first file or the second or both? > > And what in particular is a mess? Cross compilation is not easy. That's why there are such "metadistros" (for the lack of a better word) as buildroot and openembedded. They have special entries for every package that specify how to cross-compile it. There are patches for many sources, although it's better to have such files applied to the upstream sources. But it's inevitable that the build is influenced in some way to cross-compile, often by specifying variables on the make command line. I believe the developers of buildroot and openembedded would be able to deal with CRDA as is. If they find something that could be improved, they can send a patch, but I don't think they will bother to change so many things as your patch does. Besides, it's one thing to follow sane rules that simplify cross-compilation, such as providing the fourth argument to AC_RUN_IFELSE in configure.ac or not using uname to determine the target architecture. It's another thing to support cross-compilation in a way unique to the package. The gain is miniscule, and the potential for breaking is substantial. Most importantly, you are wasting time of people who could be doing something they are better at, such as development of wireless drivers. There is no point in pushing the same patch over and over again, just because you wrote it. Please try to accept the fact that it's not useful for others. Maybe it was useful for you as an exercise. But now you are not helping. Please move on and do something else. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
