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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #82010 > unrolled thread

Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2024-03-04 09:00 +0100
    Processed: Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide  linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-03-04 11:30 +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> - 2024-03-04 12:40 +0100
    Processed: Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide  linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-03-04 17:20 +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> - 2024-03-04 23:10 +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> - 2024-03-05 07:50 +0100
    Bug#1065416: marked as done (linux-libc-dev claims to provide  linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-03-20 22:00 +0100
    Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2024-03-20 22:10 +0100
      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> - 2024-03-21 08:10 +0100
    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> - 2024-03-21 20:00 +0100
    Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416 Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-08-16 13:10 +0200
      Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-08-16 20:00 +0200
        Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416 stefanor@debian.org - 2024-08-17 10:50 +0200
      Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416 Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-09-04 16:00 +0200

#82010 — Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely

Package: linux-libc-dev
Version: 6.7.7-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie

linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it 
doesn't do that completely

Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64-cross (= 6.7.7-1), ...

However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing.

Please stop providing the cross-packages, you don't even need a breaks, 
because the current cross packages continue to work.

Once that is done, I'll reduce the cross packages to some symlinks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#82014 — Processed: Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely

Processing control commands:

> reassign -1 cross-toolchain-base
Bug #1065416 [linux-libc-dev] linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-libc-dev' to 'cross-toolchain-base'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux/6.7.7-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1065416 to the same values previously set
> forcemerge 1059786 -1
Bug #1059786 [cross-toolchain-base] cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Bug #1059786 [cross-toolchain-base] cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Added tag(s) sid and trixie.
Bug #1065416 [cross-toolchain-base] linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
Added tag(s) patch.
Merged 1059786 1065416

-- 
1059786: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059786
1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82020 — 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

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:07:15PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04.03.24 11:29, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing.
> > 
> > Please be a bit more precise, there are no symlinks in this directory.
> > | # dpkg -S /usr/alpha-linux-gnu/include/asm/a.out.h
> > | linux-libc-dev-alpha-cross: /usr/alpha-linux-gnu/include/asm/a.out.h
> > | # find /usr/alpha-linux-gnu/include/ -type l
> > | #
> yes, that is the problem. the cross gcc expects these headers in
> /usr/alpha-linux-gnu/include, not in the header location for the host.

Please show your problem with a log, my crystal ball is broken.

arm-linux-gnueabihf-cpp-13 tells me:

| #include <...> search starts here:
|  /usr/lib/gcc-cross/arm-linux-gnueabihf/13/include
|  /usr/lib/gcc-cross/arm-linux-gnueabihf/13/../../../../arm-linux-gnueabihf/include
|  /usr/include/arm-linux-gnueabihf
|  /usr/include
| End of search list.

So clearly /usr/include/arm-linux-gnueabihf is used.

Regards,
Bastian

-- 
It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable.
		-- Spock, "The Enterprise Incident", stardate 5027.3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82024 — Processed: Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #1065416 [linux-libc-dev] linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Bug #1059786 [linux-libc-dev] cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
1059786: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059786
1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82026 — 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

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 01:49:24PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The packaged gcc cross toolchain uses a sysroot during its own build
> still. As it is implemented now, it searches /usr/<triplet>/include, but
> not /usr/include/<multiarch>. So quite fundamentally, the Provides that
> we two agreed do break the build of cross toolchains right now.

Okay, so this problem is about the build of the toolchain, _not_ for
everything that comes after.

> Arguably, a cross toolchain build should probably search
> /usr/include/<multiarch>. I went back and forth a bit with Matthias
> about whether we could add this and did not fully understand his
> reasons, but there is one technical reason we want to avoid it for now.
> We can have both libc6-dev:TARGET and libc6-dev-TARGET-cross installed
> and these packages can have differing versions. When that happens and we
> search both /usr/<triplet>/include and /usr/include/<multiarch>, we'd
> mix two glibc versions with usually bad results (been there).

But this is a search path.  If a file exists in one, the second one is
not found.  So nothing can happen even from version skew.

> The other aspect here is that it is not sufficient to add
> /usr/include/<multiarch> to the search path as you also need
> /usr/include to get a complete linux kernel headers experience. We
> definitely do not want to add /usr/include, because that is known to
> misguide configure tests performed for the target architecture.

We are talking about the toolchain itself.  What configure tests could
that be?  Or is that premature optimization of the gcc build?

> So at least for now, I am convinced that we will need
> /usr/<triplet>/include to be provided by the package providing
> linux-libc-dev-arch-cross.

You just said that the search path used during the build of the
toolchain and the one for everything else are unrelated.  So you are
free to create $BUILD/tmp-include with symlinks for asm, asm-generic,
linux.

The toolchain as installed already finds all headers.  So I still don't
see why we need this in the final system.

> That still leaves the question of which package would have to build that
> new linux-libc-dev-cross. The two obvious answers are linux and
> cross-toolchain-base. Do you have a preference here?

No, the gcc build itself, because it is the only part that needs it from
what you said here.

> I hope this all makes more sense now.

At least to show where it breaks.

Bastian

-- 
Each kiss is as the first.
		-- Miramanee, Kirk's wife, "The Paradise Syndrome",
		   stardate 4842.6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82030 — 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

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:04:23PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> At least to show where it breaks.

And I actually tried it and can not show the expected breakage from
missing /usr/include in the search path.  gcc-13-cross builds fine with
only linux-libc-dev/6.7.7-1.

| -rw-r--r-- 1 bastian bastian 38157 Mar  5 06:40 ../gcc-13-cross_14_amd64.changes

Bastian

-- 
You're too beautiful to ignore.  Too much woman.
		-- Kirk to Yeoman Rand, "The Enemy Within", stardate unknown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82119 — Bug#1065416: marked as done (linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Your message dated Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:48:05 +0100
with message-id <20240320204805.i7qnygpujh6eletv@shell.thinkmo.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
has caused the Debian Bug report #1065416,
regarding linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82120

Control: reopen -1

On 20.03.24 21:48, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last
> weeks.  I'm therefor closing this bug report.

Bastian,

sorry for being quiet in the time of the time_t64 transitions.

I am re-opening, and CCing leader@debian.org.

Independent of any technical issues, this is a hijacking of a package 
name. Please revert that change.

Matthias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82122

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:59:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Independent of any technical issues, this is a hijacking of a package name.
> Please revert that change.

Okay.  Please prepare to take over linux-libc-dev alltogether then,
there can be only one copy.

Bastian

-- 
Insufficient facts always invite danger.
		-- Spock, "Space Seed", stardate 3141.9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82124

Control: reassign -1 tech-ctte
Control: severity -1 normal

Hi

I don't see any way to solve this issue right now.  Please decide this
matter according to 6.1 nr 2 Debian Constitution.

Background:  linux-libc-dev provides the Linux API for consumption by
all userspace stuff.

This package was arch-any for as long as I remember and provided only
the headers for this single architecture.  Since a short while this
package is now arch-all and provides headers for all known Debian
architectures in one swoop.  This change was done when the Ubuntu
maintainers asked if we wanted to follow.

This now means that new architectures will need to get added to
linux-libc-dev first and it is not longer required to push hand crafted
packages somewhere in the ports archive.

However the package now contains everything that is also contained in
the uncoordinated linux-libc-dev-*-cross packages.  The only difference
is the physical location of the files (/usr/include instead of the
policy violating /usr/*/include).  This API proofed to be compatible
with all tested packages available in the archive.

Because of this (from my side unnecessary) code duplication, I opened
the plan to replace linux-libc-dev-*-cross, see #1059786.  Two months
later the following bug report comes in:

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't
> do that completely
> 
> Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64-cross (= 6.7.7-1), ...
> 
> However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing.
> 
> Please stop providing the cross-packages, you don't even need a breaks,
> because the current cross packages continue to work.
> 
> Once that is done, I'll reduce the cross packages to some symlinks.

Even after several e-mails, the OP was unable or unwilling to show where
the problem actually lies.

Please decide who is going to provide linux-libc-dev and all the
associated cross stuff and how it should look like.

Regards,
Bastian

-- 
Vulcans never bluff.
		-- Spock, "The Doomsday Machine", stardate 4202.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83510 — Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416

Hi Matthias (2024.07.20_13:01:42_+0200)
> I still don't see this as an issue that the Technical Committee should
> decide.

The Technical Committee is hoping that this will be resolved without
requiring us to make a decision. If the take-over offer resolves the
issue, then we will probably vote to take no further action.

> - I am accepting the offer given in
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416#108
>   to take over the linux-libc-dev package.
>   I will start working on that at DebCamp and DebConf.

Can you tell us a little more about how you plan to maintain
linux-libc-dev?

Specifically:

Will it be another binary package in cross-toolchain-base, built from
linux-source-*?

Will cross-toolchain-base now contain linux-libc-dev-*-cross and
linux-libc-dev, as separate Arch: all, Multi-Arch: foreign binary
packages?

I don't know much about the stability of these headers, but I see
regular changes. I assume moving linux-libc-dev from the linux source
to cross-toolchain-base will mean that you'll have to do more frequent
uploads of cross-toolchain-base to keep them up to date, where this was
less critical for cross-compiler toolchains.

What are the consequences of not staying up to date? I'm guessing
incoming bug reports from other packages wanting to use new features.

Stefano

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83511 — Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> The Technical Committee is hoping that this will be resolved without
> requiring us to make a decision. If the take-over offer resolves the
> issue, then we will probably vote to take no further action.

Well, take-over removes the need for talk.  And talk is what is missing.
We can do it this way, but it make the load higher for everyone.  No
idea if this is a good pretext to allow people to just not say anything
about what they mean.

But at least now Mathias actually told that his problems doesn't
actually exist in the Debian archive, but outside of it.  That's kind of
unexpected.

I have a patch to move the headers (or better said a symlink farm) to
/usr/*/include.  But we are still without any indication if this is the
problem he talked about.

Bastian

-- 
You!  What PLANET is this!
		-- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83520 — Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416

Hi Bastian (2024.08.16_17:53:17_+0000)
> > The Technical Committee is hoping that this will be resolved without
> > requiring us to make a decision. If the take-over offer resolves the
> > issue, then we will probably vote to take no further action.
> 
> Well, take-over removes the need for talk.  And talk is what is missing.
> We can do it this way, but it make the load higher for everyone.

Noted that this is still not your preferred solution here. The Committee
isn't set on that solution, if you find other ways to resolve this, that
works for us, too.

> But at least now Mathias actually told that his problems doesn't
> actually exist in the Debian archive, but outside of it.  That's kind of
> unexpected.

We don't cross build anything in the archive, so it isn't completely
unexpected to me.

> I have a patch to move the headers (or better said a symlink farm) to
> /usr/*/include.  But we are still without any indication if this is the
> problem he talked about.

That's exactly what's described in this bug's opening message and in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059786#29

Bastian, I think you got caught up on the details of whether they needed
to be symlinks or files, but I think either should work.

Can I suggest posting this patch and seeing if Matthias thinks it's
sufficient to resolve the issue?

I understand your frustration with unclear details on exactly what was
breaking and why. Reading the bugs, I think most of the questions about
the problems are now answered somewhere in them.

Stefano

> 
> Bastian
> 
> -- 
> You!  What PLANET is this!
> 		-- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0
> 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83834 — Bug#1065416: requesting input on recent posts to #1065416

Hi Matthias (2024.08.16_12:58:22_+0200)

I tried to set you up with some questions that were easy to answer here,
without trying to push any solution.

Answering them would help the committee to understand the options on the
table, and probably help the Kernel team to understand the problems with
the current package structure.

Let me repeat the questions, and you can check my assumptions:

> Will it be another binary package in cross-toolchain-base, built from
> linux-source-*?

I'm assuming so?

> Will cross-toolchain-base now contain linux-libc-dev-*-cross and
> linux-libc-dev, as separate Arch: all, Multi-Arch: foreign binary
> packages?

I'm assuming linux-libc-dev-*-cross stay the way they currently are in
cross-toolchain-base.

You'd then add linux-libc-dev, Arch: any (as it used to be)

Or maybe strip them down to dependency packages that depend on the cross
package for each arch?

> I don't know much about the stability of these headers, but I see
> regular changes. I assume moving linux-libc-dev from the linux source
> to cross-toolchain-base will mean that you'll have to do more frequent
> uploads of cross-toolchain-base to keep them up to date, where this was
> less critical for cross-compiler toolchains.
> 
> What are the consequences of not staying up to date? I'm guessing
> incoming bug reports from other packages wanting to use new features.

I already put an assumption in there :P

Stefano

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web