Hi Helmut On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > I guess that the list of architectures will always be incomplete for > some, so we probably still need a process for building a modified > linux-libc-dev package only. This probably requires some build profiles. > Is pkg.linux.nokernel pkg.linux.notools pkg.linux.quick a sensible set > of profiles for this? Is there an easily patchable way to add an > architecture?
Let's see. I have some changes pending that make config changes easier. Also we might be able to add a linux-libc-dev-arch that builds a standalone version again and is only built with a special build profile, but it still needs the package to know more information then dpkg does provide. Or you inject a new reboostrap-specific package that just adds a symlink /usr/lib/$DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH/asm pointing to the appropriate /usr/lib/linux/uapi/$ARCH if linux-libc-dev does not include this. > For c-t-b, I guess that we can simply cut out linux-libc-dev and remove > all the -cross packages. I hope there is no devil in the detail. I would start with adding Provides and later Breaks for them to linux-libc-dev. The compilers have proper search paths. (And they violate the policy, so the devils are with those already.) Bastian -- Deflector shields just came on, Captain.