dietlibc-dev has been removed from b-d (bug #251746).
** Changed in: e2fsprogs (Ubuntu Intrepid)
Status: Triaged = Fix Released
--
FTBFS in latest archive rebuild test
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/247678
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
Steve,
I have two concerns with your suggestion. First, are we sure that in
the future, no Ubuntu or Debian buildd will do something stupid and
think that because it has loaded dietlibc-dev, it doesn't need to load
libc6-dev? Secondly, and probably more seriously, this means that I
will
libc6-dev is in build-essential, so no buildd will ever be without it.
That said, Steve's suggestion still looks pretty darned hideous to me,
and it's likely better either for Ubuntu to just be carrying a small
build-dep diff for now, or for us to evaluate the value of moving
dietlibc to main.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:57:56PM -, Adam Conrad wrote:
libc6-dev is in build-essential, so no buildd will ever be without it.
That said, Steve's suggestion still looks pretty darned hideous to me,
and it's likely better either for Ubuntu to just be carrying a small
build-dep diff for
Hi Ted,
Although there's no [!ubuntu] syntax for rules files, if you declare a
build-dependency on package-in-universe | package-in-main, the Ubuntu
buildds will DTRT with it. Perhaps you could make this build-dependency
read dietlibc-dev [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc
ppc64
Yep, I just checked e2fsprogs_1.40.8-2ubuntu2.diff.gz, and sure enough,
whoever packaged up e2fsprogs for Ubuntu simply snipped off the
dietlibc-dev from the Build-deps line in the control file.
Unfortunately there isn't a dietlibc-dev [!ubuntu] syntax for the rules
file, so I guess Ubuntu
The dietlibc-dev dependency can be safely removed. The rules files has
a provision where if dietlibc is present, it is used to make
e2fsck.static somewhat smaller in size --- from 1036k to 816k, for a
savings of over 20%. But it is strictly optional, and perhaps a relic
from the days when
