Re: Challenge to you: Voice your concerns regarding systemd upstream
Hi.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Header files are arch-agnostic, it's the .la files that case all
> > the trouble.
>
> I'm afraid that's not always the case. I've encountered specific cases
> where the headers are different between architectures.
Hmm. Kernel headers come to mind, but for typical userspace headers
that's unusual.
> > Still, you're raising a valid point - compiling for several arches
> > was possible before multiarch, and it's not possible now without
> > chroots. I prefer chroots for this (less strange dependencies in
> > the 'base' system), but YMMV.
>
> If I'm reading you right, "strange dependencies" only matter when you're
> going to install what you've compiled on a machine other than the one
> where the build was done.
Yup. That's my usual 'modus operandi' since I've learned how to build a
Debian package.
> For the use case of test-building (and
> test-running, and in some cases installing and actively using) the
> upstream development tree, that doesn't particularly matter; there are
> exceptions, but for the most part, doing that type of build on a
> different machine from where the resulting binary will be used is pretty
> much unheard of.
On the contrary, it's a viable practice once you take into account a
simple fact - there's more than one processor architecture, and
sometimes you use several of them.
For example, try compiling a kernel on ARM system. Try cross-compiling
the same kernel on a conventional x86 system. Compare build times.
Unless you have an Intel Atom instead of CPU - cross-compilation wins.
> > About the only thing that I'm missing here is why would anyone
> > should compile anything on a production server, Xen's dom0
> > specifically (as it seems to be the main lee's concern).
>
> I did say that I didn't think lee was referring to this same type of
> breakage. This was just an example of a "multiarch complaint" such as
> you said you had not seen so far; there's nothing saying it's the only
> such.
Point taken.
Reco
Reply to: