On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:41:59PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > The most obvious bug is the one mentioned in the patch: #760770 > > It is about a bug in the implementation of with_deps_on_target_arch (the > > contended feature). > > I think I may not understand what's going on here. In your mail to > the TC, you say: > > it was possible to build a gcc cross compiler with different > properties from the default build by setting > with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs=yes and DEB_CROSS_NO_BIARCH=yes. > > You mean setting these as environment variables ? If so then it would > seem that this feature has no direct effect on anyone who is not > trying to use it. Is that correct ?
It is correct, that builds that do not set these variables are not affected by it beyond also carrying it as dead code in the gcc packaging. > Of course it does have a maintenance burden on the package maintainer, > which is what Don is asking about. I have to admit that the code is not exactly lightweight. I do understand the desire to get rid it and asked that a ctte ruling does not apply beyond jessie for that reason. > #760770 shows an element of that but it is immediately obvious from > the initial report that something odd is going on and it contains a > link to #720363 which mentions Oh, my previous bug research has missed gcc-4.8 bugs. > https://wiki.debian.org/MultiarchCrossToolchainBuild which talks > abouit the with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs feature. It doesn't appear > that #760770 has taken a great deal of Matthias's time, although it > did necessitate some bug triage. One of the issues here is that the submitter wasn't explicit about using the non-default build here. It only surfaced in message 19 and can be spotted from looking at the patch. When being asked to do a self-contained cross build (and the self-contained kinda implies not using with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs), a log with the alternative build method is sent back. > Are the maintainers of the disputed features subscribed to the > appropriate packages in the PTS ? Does Matthias welcome help triaging I am not subscribed yet. The major reason is that I did not perceive the maintenance of the feature as a problem until Matthias stated it in this bug. It is certainly fixable. > these bugs ? It seems to me that it would be easy to come up with a > workflow that allowed Matthias to usertag these kind of bugs and hand > them over to the cross teams. Sounds reasonable to me. Asking Wookey whether he would like to share that work. > What are the cross-gcc-4.9-armhf packages that are referred to ? It is a source package that uses the gcc-4.9-source binary package from the gcc-4.9 source package to build a cross compiler targeting armhf. In GNU terminology that is build=host=amd64, target=armhf. The packaging is thin compared to the gcc-4.9 packaging and its goal is to enable people to just apt-get install cross toolchains rather than building them each time they need them. (I am not a maintainer of cross-gcc-4.9-*.) Judging from the replies, I would like to repeat the timing argument here: The mechanism being discussed was disabled in gcc-4.9 without any advance notice or discussion[1]. The code for supporting the default method in glibc has not yet arrived in the Debian glibc package or the BTS, but Matthias indicated that he would be working on that and he seems to make progress outside Debian. I am not opposed to using the default build method for bootstrapping new Debian architectures in principle, but in my experience it takes a long time to merge patches into the glibc packaging and the freeze is certainly not accelerating that process. I am not opposed to disabled with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs in general, just now is the wrong time, because it is impossible to get the corresponding functionality to gcc's default cross build into glibc. Most of the changes necessary to make the alternative method work with glibc have been merged however: #743676 #754350 #756095 #742640 #745380 #752480 #755580 #756473 (but most of these changes are also necessary for the default method) Helmut [1] It is worth noting here that the upload of cross-gcc-4.9-* similarly lacked discussion. An advance notice to the gcc list or targeting experimental would have been better here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141028061340.ga22...@alf.mars