Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1236118

Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Bastian (2025.02.04_13:25:08_-0400)
>The resolution of the issue brought to the tech-ctte requires figuring
>out whether linux-libc-dev will take over providing these headers for
>cross toolchain building, or whether cross-toolchain-base continues to
>own the linux-libc-dev-${arch}-cross virtual package names (and provides
>symlinks or duplicates of headers).

I've had a few IRC conversations with both Bastian and Matthias about 
what comes next. No conclusions yet, but the ground we've covered is:

Matthias is asserting that the -cross package namespace and 
/usr/<triplet> sysroot directories belong to cross-toolchain-base. He'd 
like to keep control of those packages.

Bastian is concerned that if both linux-libc-dev and 
linux-libc-dev-*-cross provide linux headers in different paths they 
should conflict with each other to avoid compilers accidentally sourcing 
the wrong headers. linux-libc-dev installs in the usual multiarch 
include directory (/usr/include/$ARCH/linux/). linux-libc-dev-*-cross 
installs in the sysroot directory (/usr/$ARCH/include/linux/)

I would imagine that any conflicts like that would make 
linux-libc-dev-*-cross practically uninstallable in any situation where 
you'd need them (libc6-dev depends on linux-libc-dev).

So, we're back to trying to unpick this knot. The Techncial Committee is 
not supposed to do design work, but I can see some possible ways out of 
this.

I could see a scenario where linux-libc-dev-*-cross are tiny wrapper 
packages, depending on linux-libc-dev and including symlinks from one 
include directory to the other. I assume that wouldn't need the 
Conflicts?

Or if the Conflicts were more version-targetted and allow linux-libc-dev 
and linux-libc-dev-*-cross to co-install if they were built from the 
same linux source version, would that be acceptable?

Do either of you have any thoughts on how we should figure this out?

Stefano

-- 
Stefano Rivera
   http://tumbleweed.org.za/
   +1 415 683 3272

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2025-01-28 00:40 +0100
  Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-02-04 15:10 +0100
    Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap stefanor@debian.org - 2025-02-04 18:30 +0100
      Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-02-04 20:40 +0100
      Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-02-05 00:00 +0100
      Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2025-03-04 18:00 +0100
        Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-03-13 07:40 +0100
          Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-03-15 11:40 +0100

csiph-web