From: Sven Joachim on 25 Dec 2009 04:00 On 2009-12-25 07:55 +0100, Daniel Bareiro wrote: > Sorry to send this message twice, but I thought that for some reason it > had not arrived at the list. Although it seems that both messages > arrived with a delay of six hours. This can be due to some moderation of > the list? This list is not moderated, and your messages have a very low spamassassin score, so they should have arrived immediately. You can look in the "Received:" headers to see where they spent the time. >> And why in this case yes we must use these options if running an amd64 >> kernel in userland 32 is not necessary to use ARCH=x86_64 in the >> invocations of "make" when compiling of the traditional way? > > Well, thinking a little more about this subject, the cause by which this > happens perhaps is that when make-kpkg consults the general architecture > of the system, it obtains in (b.1) as in (b.2) that is i386. For that > reason in both cases it is necessary to use --cross-compile and --arch. > > Nevertheless when being used the compilation of the traditional way, > this becomes by outside any own control of Debian and the architecture > that will be used by default is the one of running kernel. > > Is correct this asseveration? Yes, kernel-package relies on the information dpkg-architecture provides whereas the kernel Makefile trusts "uname -m" to determine the architecture. On systems with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland this gives different information: ,---- | % dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH | i386 | % uname -m | x86_64 `---- Merry Christmas, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Daniel Bareiro on 25 Dec 2009 12:20 Hi, Sven. On Friday, 25 December 2009 09:53:53 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > > Sorry to send this message twice, but I thought that for some reason > > it had not arrived at the list. Although it seems that both messages > > arrived with a delay of six hours. This can be due to some > > moderation of the list? > This list is not moderated, and your messages have a very low > spamassassin score, so they should have arrived immediately. You can > look in the "Received:" headers to see where they spent the time. It seems that the problem was to the return: Received: from liszt.debian.org (EHLO liszt.debian.org) [82.195.75.100] by mx0.gmx.net (mx052) with SMTP; 24 Dec 2009 20:10:35 +0100 <------ Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 5547A2D0D8E; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:49 +0000 (UTC) <------ Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5AD2D0D5C for <lists-debian-user(a)liszt.debian.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525) with ESMTP id 7OfJDoFZMriA for <lists-debian-user(a)liszt.debian.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Now I'm seeing that the email crosses liszt.debian.org several times, which draws attention to me. > >> And why in this case yes we must use these options if running an > >> amd64 kernel in userland 32 is not necessary to use ARCH=x86_64 in > >> the invocations of "make" when compiling of the traditional way? > > Well, thinking a little more about this subject, the cause by which > > this happens perhaps is that when make-kpkg consults the general > > architecture of the system, it obtains in (b.1) as in (b.2) that is > > i386. For that reason in both cases it is necessary to use > > --cross-compile and --arch. > > > > Nevertheless when being used the compilation of the traditional way, > > this becomes by outside any own control of Debian and the > > architecture that will be used by default is the one of running > > kernel. > > > > Is correct this asseveration? > Yes, kernel-package relies on the information dpkg-architecture > provides whereas the kernel Makefile trusts "uname -m" to determine > the architecture. On systems with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland > this gives different information: > > ,---- > | % dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH > | i386 > | % uname -m > | x86_64 > `---- Thanks to all by the contributions. These were very useful. Regards, Daniel -- Fingerprint: BFB3 08D6 B4D1 31B2 72B9 29CE 6696 BF1B 14E6 1D37 Powered by Debian GNU/Linux Lenny - Linux user #188.598
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Vuze (Azureus) broken after Apt-get upgrade Next: VDPAU? Sound when watching DVB-S2? |