Zero patch consolidation

[Matthias Klose]

On 08.12.2009 14:54, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Matthias Klose<doko at ubuntu.com>:
>> On 08.12.2009 14:42, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> b77 is already out, so I just need to get round to updating IcedTea7
>>> to build against it, dropping the ia64 patch and part of the uname
>>> patch (the rest I'll stick in a Debian subdir as it's specific to that
>>> platform).
>>
>> the only Debian specific diff should be the mips/mipsel arch selection. is
>> there anything else?
>>
>>   Matthias
>>
>
> Sorry, my mistake it's not arch but uname:
>
> patches/icedtea-uname.patch:+  ifneq (,$(wildcard /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture))
> patches/icedtea-uname.patch:+    mach := $(shell (dpkg-architecture
> -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU 2>/dev/null || echo $(mach)) | sed
> 's/powerpc$$/ppc/;s/hppa/parisc/')

yes, that's what I meant; note that IcedTea has an test for endian-ness in it's 
configure script. how could that be integrated upstream?

> There's also:
>
> patches/icedtea-explicit-target-arch.patch:-  ifneq (,$(wildcard
> /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture))
> patches/icedtea-explicit-target-arch.patch:-    mach := $(shell
> (dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU 2>/dev/null || echo $(mach)
>
> and icedtea-print-lsb-release (print_debian_lsb_file).

icedtea-print-lsb-release can/should go upstream. it's just one more file which 
is handled. fedora and redhat are handled explicitely as well.

> I think the
> gcc-suffix patches are also only used on Debian/Ubuntu as only those
> distros build a gcc-x binary (at least I remember that being
> mentioned).

maybe, otoh, upstream has these very odd prefixes for the tools ...

   Matthias