Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Helmut Grohne Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.debian.kernel Subject: Bug#1084908: arch:all linux-libc-dev causes problems to architecture bootstrap Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 22:30:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Thu Dec 5 21:27:15 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.151 Reply-To: Helmut Grohne , 1084908@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Debian Kernel Team X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 1084908 X-Debian-Pr-Package: linux-libc-dev X-Debian-Pr-Source: linux, linux-2.6, linux-2.6.24 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1871758 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 33 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:33:54 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <20241205203354.GA971206@subdivi.de> X-Original-References: <20241010160324.GA2302216@subdivi.de> <20241010160324.GA2302216@subdivi.de> <20241019133521.dmza5uat3y7ro6xf@shell.thinkmo.de> <20241010160324.GA2302216@subdivi.de> <20241204214059.eanu2g5synr5cifa@shell.thinkmo.de> <20241010160324.GA2302216@subdivi.de> <20241205073835.GB220964@subdivi.de> <20241205143053.r5ro5mv5ofghmo2z@shell.thinkmo.de> <20241010160324.GA2302216@subdivi.de> <20241205143053.r5ro5mv5ofghmo2z@shell.thinkmo.de> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1222865 linux.debian.kernel:84741 Hi Bastian, On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > What kind of information can this dependency satisfiability test use? > > Something like this? > > | Provides: > | linux-libc-dev-supports (= amd64-0), > | linux-libc-dev-supports (= arm64-0), > | linux-libc-dev-supports-multiarch (= aarch64-linux-gnu-0), > | linux-libc-dev-supports-multiarch (= x86-64-linux-gnu-0), Using Provides is the natural approach indeed. Encoding the architecture into the version may technically work, but it feels really strange. Earlier, I proposed encoding it into the provided package name like linux-libc-dev-arm64-cross, but we all know how that went and I would not have proposed it if I had seen how it broke other pieces. Still if we were to just drop the "-cross" suffix and go for a very similar version. Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64, linux-libc-dev-arm64, ... In any of these cases, I can inject extra dependencies and have dose-builddebcheck correctly determine whether the existing linux-libc-dev satisfies what is needed. As stated elsewhere, I still don't understand what we gained by switching from Arch:any to Arch:all, but maybe I don't have to. A solution that adds any of these Provides is what I'd call good enough in practical terms for the purpose of bootstrapping. Helmut