On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:21:19 +0200 Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de>
wrote:
> Control: severity -1 serious
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > > I think this should be fixed asap, ideally in buster. Do you
> > > agree with bumping this bug to rcness?
> >
> > Yes
>
> Bumped.
>
> > > Do you also agree with removing all ac_cv_sizeof_*? (At a later
> > > time)
> >
> > If they are no longer needed by builds, yes. Do packages actually
> > get these from the compiler now or does something else populate
> > these variables when crossing?
>
> "Recent" autotools gained an AC_COMPUTE_INT to determine the value of
> a compile time integral expression. During native compilation it is
> essentially printf("%d", ...). For cross compilation autotools
> implements it using bisection on char "somearray[integral_expression <
> test_value ? 1 : -1];". Repeatedly compiling such programs allows
> deducing the value as negatively sized arrays yield a compilation
> failure. AC_CHECK_SIZEOF is not implemented using AC_COMPUTE_INT.
>
> Very old configure scripts may still need ac_cv_sizeof_*. The last
> one I knew was blt #772590. I don't think we have an old-enough
> autoconf in the archive, so any package that fails now is missing
> source.
>
> For these reasons, I think that continuing to maintain ac_cv_sizeof_*
> is not reasonable. And if we do so, we should generate them using
> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF at build time. Or just remove them.I think it's definitely reasonable to retain ac_cv_sizeof_* for buster. The list can be optimised and improved for bullseye. I've prepared a package based on the debdiff from the previous reply and I'll upload today. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpdDkuum24NO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
