[Buildroot] Python standard library problems

[Pedro Sanchez]

Thanks for the patch. I think it's been tested since I see it's 
committed already. But I'll give a try anyway and will let you know.

Thanks!,

-- 
Pedro
On 08/29/2011 11:58 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> I've just sent a patch for this issue, could you test it ?
>
> Maxime
>
> On 16/08/2011 10:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/08/2011 19:47, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>>> Thanks Maxime for looking at this. Indeed, my workstation is running
>>> Linux 64 bits. I'm glad to know that cross-compiling Python goes well on
>>> a 32-bit OS. I'll have to fire up a VM just to run BR :-|
>>
>> Or maybe we can just fix this bug :)
>>
>>> On the specific problem we have, I don't have any insight yet. All I can
>>> tell you is that I did the exercise of building BR w/Python using three
>>> different toolchains (CodeSourcery, Crosstool-ng, and uClibC) and I got
>>> exactly the same disappointing results**.
>>
>> Neither am I. I don't get why a cross-toolchain which runs fine could
>> fail to build a specific module. After all, on 32 and 64 bits, we use
>> the exact same toolchains (at least for the Code Sourcery one.).
>>
>> After all, the host-python should be compiled for 64 bits using the
>> native toolchain, and the target one compiled (in our case at least) for
>> 32 bits, with the cross-toolchain. There shouldn't be any 64-to-32 bits
>> compilation at all.
>>
>>> Maybe this can help?
>>>
>>> http://blog.devork.be/2009/02/compiling-32-bit-python-on-amd64.html
>>
>> Yep, I ran into that trick last week too. I'm not sure this is a good
>> one though. This is a good quick fix, but I wonder what will happen if
>> your target is a 64bits architecture ? Moreover, this adds the
>> dependency to gcc-multilib.
>>
>> Peter, what do you think of it ?
>>
>> Maxime
>>
>
>


-- 
Pedro