Re: glibc 2.2.3-9 on alpha/ppc
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 09:58:03PM -0700, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:53:29AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > The glibc build rules doesn't correctly find the headers installed.
> > > There are bugs filed on this, both on glibc and kernel-headers (for
> > > providing too many) but I can't find the numbers because brainfood
> > > is down.
> >
> > The glibc rules aren't responsible for "finding" anything. They are
> > responsible for defining them. If ppc doesn't have 2.4 kernel headers,
> > there's the bug, not in glibc.
>
> As I told you on IRC, I don't think there's anything wrong with
> depending on kernel-header-2.4 - IF that provide evaluates to something
> sensible. It doesn't. I can just force it by keeping kernel-headers
> for PPC installed on the build daemon; I'll do that after my next fight
> with bitkeeper. But I strongly dislike buildd-operator-voodoo hacks to
> make dependencies work.
You could select one of the alternatives that provide kernel-headers-2.4
in /etc/sbuild.conf, just like dozens of others are selected.
It would be insane for me to try and keep up a list of exact kernel
headers for each and every arch (there are > 10 now, I think), since
things get outdated so quickly, and the build-dep becomes useless (just
look at potato's kernel-headers build-deps). So instead, I opt for the
generic build-dep, and let each arch resolve it appropriately. The
alternative would be an even bigger mess.
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: