[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alpha build progress and suggestions for helping

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:22:27AM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/11 04:07, Bob Tracy wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 01:21:52PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> >> (...)
> >> Many have failed because of a broken ghostscript install. Unfortunately
> >> the newest ghostscript failed to build but I plan to have a closer look
> >> at that in the next couple of days.  So ignore any packages with the
> >> error: "Can't find initialization file gs_init.ps."
> >> (...)
> > 
> > I don't know what the latest version is, but "9.02~dfsg-3" should build
> > fine with any sane tool chain.
> No it does not.  It FTBFS with the new multiarch toolchain because it
> makes incorrect assumptions about the locations of system include files.
> See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639073

Harumph!  I *did* say "sane" toolchain :-).  Mine's old enough to
qualify under the circumstances, but as we've discussed previously, my
environment isn't the official one that buildd boxes have to use.

I admit the move to arch-specific includes has the potential to be a big
win from multiple perspectives when the smoke clears.  Until then...
Forgive my ignorance, but is the "multiarch toolchain" idea something
that other UN*X-like OSs are adopting?  The way things have traditionally
been organized under "/usr/include" on the various UN*X and UN*X-like OSs
hasn't scaled well over the past 35 years, and the resulting mess is
going to be painful to sort out.

I noticed another change in "the way things are done" which is a clear
violation of the principle of least astonishment: it appears "/var/run"
is now symlinked to "/run" following a recent upgrade I applied.  This
broke "radvd" which wants to put its PID file in a subdirectory of
"/var/run" (/var/run/radvd).  Yeah, it's probably a bad idea for "radvd"
to be doing that, but moving "/var/run" without looking for side-effects
was a bad idea too.

As a rule, I like as little filesystem I/O on the root fs as possible.
If "/run" on a fresh installation is a separate filesystem (maybe even a
tmpfs type), I could understand the change.  Otherwise, "/run" isn't the
brightest idea the powers that be ever unleashed on us.  Just my
opinion, and worth what you paid for it :-).


Reply to: