From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:11:52 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] core: fix setting of HOSTARCH In-Reply-To: <20151111235359.707acc35@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:53:59 +0100") References: <1447095621-32080-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20151111235359.707acc35@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87si4bocvr.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, > Those build failures are not caused by a 32 bits vs. 64 bits issue. In > fact, I started running my chroot under "linux32", but it was even > worse. Because indeed my chroots *are* 64 bits. > However, the real problem is that the new Linaro toolchains have been > built against glibc 2.14 (for the host), while my chroot only uses > glibc 2.11 (from Debian 6.0). Ahh. Debian 6.0 is getting quite old (2011), but yeah - People on Enterprise distributions might end up with the same problems. > I'm not sure how to handle this. Some old distros may not have glibc > 2.14. I don't think there's much we can do, besides perhaps adding a comment in the help text. I'm not sure how realistic it is to convince the Linaro people to build their toolchains on ancient distributions. > In any case, I believe the rework of how we get HOSTARCH is not really > needed IMO: 1/ it is not the source of the problem for the Linaro > toolchain and 2/ it is most likely appropriate to use setarch/linux32 > when running a 32 bits chroot under a 64 bits kernel. I agree about linux32, yes. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard