Hi
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:54:42PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > 1. API expectation of *-$arch-cross packages
> > I asked exactly that in
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416#55
> I guess the best
Hi Bastian,
I've intentionally snipped much of your reply as I think we two agree on
many of the aspects.
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > 1. API expectation of *-$arch-cross packages
>
> I asked exactly that in
>
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> 2+3+6+7. linux-libc-dev could be split into linux-libc-dev-common
>arch:all m-a:foreign and the symlink farms could be kept in
>linux-libc-dev:any m-a:same retaining the size reduction.
This would not actually work.
Hi Helmut
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Care to just share what you actually found? Where is it broken and how
> > to see this?
> > Because this whole thing started with "it is broken, but I won't tell
> > you where or what or how".
> Quite clearly, this is
Hi,
In this mail, I'll try to summarize my state of knowledge on this
matter while noting that I don't see the full picture.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 11:17:55AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:48:01PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > I was recently working on gcc builds
Hi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:48:01PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I was recently working on gcc builds and this disagreement currently
> makes stuff unbuildable. Hence I looked into solutions and/or
> workarounds.
Care to just share what you actually found? Where is it broken and how
to see
Hi Bastian and Matthias,
I was recently working on gcc builds and this disagreement currently
makes stuff unbuildable. Hence I looked into solutions and/or
workarounds.
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > You just said that the search path used during the build of
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
>
Hi Bastian,
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:04:22PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Arguably, a cross toolchain build should probably search
> > /usr/include/. 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
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
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//include, but
> not /usr/include/. So quite fundamentally, the Provides that
> we two agreed do break the build
Hi Bastian,
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:30:09PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
