Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

* Helmut Grohne , 2016-02-03, 06:17: I see that there is now a lintian check for this issue whcih is great, and gives us some idea of how big it is: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html So that lists 240 packages which are MA:same and

Re: The state of cross building

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:39:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I see these haven't entered testing because: > > * 183 days old (needed 5 days) > * crossbuild-essential-arm64/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:arm64 > * crossbuild-essential-armel/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:armel

Re: Fixing dependency resolution of britney (was: Re: The state of cross building)

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 23:07 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > My question is: why does it not just use dose3 just as the buildds > are doing it? How old is the dose codebase? The changelog.gz in the current Debian package only goes back to 2012, which is more than a decade after britney was

Fixing dependency resolution of britney (was: Re: The state of cross building)

Hi, Quoting Helmut Grohne (2016-02-02 20:40:38) > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:39:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I see these haven't entered testing because: > > > > * 183 days old (needed 5 days) > > * crossbuild-essential-arm64/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:arm64 > > *

Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

Hi Wookey, On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:49:07AM +, Wookey wrote: > I see that there is now a lintian check for this issue whcih is great, > and gives us some idea of how big it is: > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html > > So that lists 240 packages

Re: The state of cross building

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:08:09PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > We have cross compilers and crossbuild-essential-* packages in unstable > for quite a while now. (Thanks to Matthias Klose.) I see these haven't entered testing because: * 183 days old (needed 5 days) *

Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

+++ Johannes Schauer [2016-01-31 15:27 +0100]: > Quoting Stephen Kitt (2016-01-31 11:49:32) > > For example, hhvm can't be cross-compiled because it > > build-depends, directly and indirectly (via imagemagick), on > > libfreetype6-dev > > (which contains /usr/bin/freetype-config and is therefore

Re: The state of cross building

+++ Helmut Grohne [2016-01-31 20:13 +0100]: > Hi Colin, > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 04:51:26PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Thanks for doing this. > > > > How frequently will these be updated? It would be nice for people to be > > able to upload fixes and see the effects. > > Thus far, these

Re: The state of cross building

+++ Helmut Grohne [2016-02-02 20:40 +0100]: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:39:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I see these haven't entered testing because: > > > > * 183 days old (needed 5 days) > > * crossbuild-essential-arm64/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:arm64 > > *

Re: The state of cross building

On 30.01.2016 20:08, Helmut Grohne wrote: Cross building the Debian archive - Debian unstable has about 22000 source packages. Out of those, about 5000 source packages can satisfy their Build-Depends in a cross build setting. For failing packages, detailed

Re: The state of cross building

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:08:09PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Out of those 5000 source packages, I selected 3000 popular (as in > popcon) source packages and built them using debomatic (build arch = > amd64, host arch = ppc64el). (Thanks to Luca Falavigna.) About 1000 > builds were successful

Re: The state of cross building

Hi Timo, On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 05:18:22PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: > make just defaults CC to cc so setting CC in the surrounding environment > works > as intended, even without a Makefile. Just try: "CC=clang make foo" with a > foo.c in the directory. I stand corrected about this

Re: The state of cross building

Hi Colin, On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 04:51:26PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Thanks for doing this. > > How frequently will these be updated? It would be nice for people to be > able to upload fixes and see the effects. Thus far, these are one-shot rebuilds. It is the second attempt of mine. I

Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

Hi Johannes, hi Bastien, On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:53:34 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Bastien ROUCARIES (2016-01-31 00:49:14) > > Could you document on wiki how can we begin as a package manager. For > > instance I could not achieve to parse > >

Re: The state of cross building

Hi, 2016-01-30 20:08:09 Helmut Grohne: > Let me give a status update on how well cross building works in > unstable. > Processing the logs > --- > > I've hacked up a script that guesses failure reasons by scanning the > logs with some regular expressions. Common issues are: > >

Re: The state of cross building

Hi Helmut, 2016-01-31 15:58:17 Helmut Grohne: > Unfortunately, for Makefile based build systems we cannot simply pass CC > to the build. Exporting it as an environment variable, will not help > much as make defines CC as a builtin variable, which overrides the > environment. In the vast majority

Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

Hi Stephen and Bastien, Quoting Stephen Kitt (2016-01-31 11:49:32) > I'll give it a shot... (And add this later to the wiki.) which page will you be editing? > As I understand it, the page lists *dependency* problems which prevent: It is indeed important to stress that these are only

Re: The state of cross building

Hi Timo, On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:24:29PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: > The build log has an interesting line: > > dpkg-architecture: warning: specified GNU system type powerpc64le-linux-gnu > > does not match CC system type x86_64-linux-gnu, try setting a correct CC > > environment

Re: bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

* Johannes Schauer , 2016-01-31, 15:27: libmagickcore-dev is multiarch:foreign This is surely a bug. libmagickcore-dev is a transitional package for libmagickcore-6.q16-dev, which is MA:same, so its interfaces are very much architecture dependent. -- Jakub Wilk

The state of cross building

Hi, Let me give a status update on how well cross building works in unstable. Toolchain - We have cross compilers and crossbuild-essential-* packages in unstable for quite a while now. (Thanks to Matthias Klose.) These tend to work well. Recently, sbuild saw significant improvements

bugs in bootstrap.debian.net (was: Re: The state of cross building)

Hi, Quoting Bastien ROUCARIES (2016-01-31 00:49:14) > Could you document on wiki how can we begin as a package manager. For > instance I could not achieve to parse > http://bootstrap.debian.net/cross_all/imagemagick.html I apologize. Since I wrote the software it is hard for me to put myself

Re: The state of cross building

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hi, > > Let me give a status update on how well cross building works in > unstable. > > Toolchain > - > > We have cross compilers and crossbuild-essential-* packages in unstable > for quite a while now. (Thanks to