Bug#1065416: [Cross-toolchain-base-devs] Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely

From	Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.rc
Subject	Bug#1065416: [Cross-toolchain-base-devs] Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Date	2024-03-06 08:00 +0100
Message-ID	<IeTpT-eKze-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <Ienq1-eqRa-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <IeoFr-erMG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <IeJqx-eEwq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <IeboS-ejA0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <IeJqx-eEwq-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Helmut

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The problem arises in the reverse sense. If a file does not exist in
> one, it is searched in the second and erroneously may be found. That may
> make tests pass that should not pass and typically causes a link failure
> later.

But you want /usr/include to be found.  Otherwise you would not be able
to use most of the libraries for cross compiling.

>      . While I do not have a concrete example at hand, I have seen this
> pattern repeatedly and generally favour moving stuff out of /usr/include
> to avoid this kind of confusion that causes difficult to debug problems.
> This also motivates #798955 (in addition to the problem with file
> conflicts).

In this case here, this would just find kernel headers for a different
version.  Those are essentially a headers only library, nothing is
available for linking.  And all the headers provided in /usr/include are
the same for all architectures.

So moving stuff out of /usr/include might be a good idea if the -dev
package is itself arch dependent.

> The one case I really do remember quite well is sanitizers. These should
> not be enabled in the earlier toolchain stages and failing to disable
> them tends to cause linker failures. I don't think it matches the
> concrete situation exactly though. You also make a good case in your
> followup reporting that gcc-13-cross actually builds.

Yep.  My problem is: I tested stuff, not everything of course, and did
not see any breakage.  Also I checked the values I know could influence
that and they say it is fine.  So at some point I have to assume it is
not broken, as exhaustive search is simply not possible.

The only statement in this bug report is now: it is located in a
different location, so it is broken.  No single piece of evidence is
shown, like broken builds or some other ways to see the brokeness.

Regards,
Bastian

-- 
A princess should not be afraid -- not with a brave knight to protect her.
		-- McCoy, "Shore Leave", stardate 3025.3

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

Thread

Bug#1065416: [Cross-toolchain-base-devs] Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2024-03-04 21:50 +0100
  Bug#1065416: [Cross-toolchain-base-devs] Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2024-03-05 21:20 +0100
    Bug#1065416: [Cross-toolchain-base-devs] Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-03-06 08:00 +0100

csiph-web