Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(359)

Issue 523062: monitor_reconfig: Switch to new packaging style (Closed)

Created:
10 years, 11 months ago by cjwatson
Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago
CC:
chromium-os-reviews_googlegroups.com
Visibility:
Public.

Description

monitor_reconfig: Switch to new packaging style Use dh(1). Declare build-dependencies correctly. Pass toolchain parameters correctly for cross-compilation.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 2
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+27 lines, -50 lines) Patch
M src/platform/monitor_reconfig/Makefile View 2 chunks +4 lines, -9 lines 0 comments Download
M src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/changelog View 1 chunk +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/control View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/rules View 2 chunks +14 lines, -40 lines 2 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)
cjwatson
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-05 18:09:24 UTC) #1
tedbo
http://codereview.chromium.org/523062/diff/1/5 File src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/rules (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/523062/diff/1/5#newcode15 src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/rules:15: CC := $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc I'm curious why we don't have ...
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-05 18:34:20 UTC) #2
cjwatson
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-06 17:35:44 UTC) #3
http://codereview.chromium.org/523062/diff/1/5
File src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/rules (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/523062/diff/1/5#newcode15
src/platform/monitor_reconfig/debian/rules:15: CC := $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc
On 2010/01/05 18:34:20, tedbo wrote:
> I'm curious why we don't have the builder set CC, CXX, CFLAGS, etc. to the
> proper values rather than doing that in the rules file(s)?

We could, although it was relatively low-win to attempt to do so since the bulk
of packages figure this out themselves using autoconf. Do you want this as a
TODO comment in chromiumos-build or something, perhaps?

> Also, is the plan to eventually always use an explicit toolchain even in the
x86
> case?

I hadn't been planning to, as it doesn't seem to buy anything and the path of
least resistance is to just let scripts use gcc as they probably will by
default. Do you have a reason to change that?

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698