On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:17:37PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > If there is a reason you > > need this versioned build-dep on libc6-dev (which is not explained in the > > changelog),
> It (sort of) is explained: the last line in the changelog says: > * Correct the readlink definition to match the newer 2.5 glibc: now return > a ssize_t instead of an int. > I think it is necessary since (I think) this changes the ABI: readlink in 2.5 > returns a ssize_t whereas previously it returned an int. This causes no > problem when sizeof(ssize_t) == sizeof(int) (which is the case in i386), but > it causes a FTBFS when used in 64 bit archs. This change was made because > there were bugs reported upstream for a FTBFS on 64 bit archs. Ok. Well, I would've gone with an autoconf check instead of a versioned bulid-dependency in that case, but your choice. :) > > please fix the build-dep to be architecture-conditional, > > build-depending on libc6.1-dev on alpha and ia64 instead of on libc6-dev. > The versions should be the same? Yes, the versions are the same, just the package name is different for historical reasons. > I am not sure how the arch-dependant dependencies work, I have changed > them to read the following: > libc6-dev (>= 2.5) [!alpha,!ia64], libc6.1-dev (>= 2.5) [alpha, ia64] no commas in the arch list, FWIW. > Shouldn't I be taking into account the kFreeBSD and Hurd ports too? If so, > which tags should I use in the build-dep line? The kfreebsd package seems to be named libc0.1-dev, and I'm not sure about the hurd. But perhaps this change isn't relevant to the non-Linux ports, and you could just list: libc6-dev (>= 2.5) [!alpha !ia64 !hurd-i386 !kfreebsd-i386], libc6.1-dev (>= 2.5) [alpha, ia64] ? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
