+++ 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 > > * crossbuild-essential-armel/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:armel > > * crossbuild-essential-armhf/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libc6-dev:armhf > > .... > > * Invalidated by dependency > > * Not considered > > * Depends: build-essential dpkg-cross > > > > Am I right in thinking this is because of how the testing scripts > > work; is this something that is likely to be fixed in the future, or > > is crossbuild-essential-* something that is only intended for unstable > > and never for testing/stable? We do want to get these into stretch so that stable has a working cross-build setup. > As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would make these packages > unfit for release in principle. However, there currently are unsolved > problems that prevent them from transitioning to testing. > > The crossbuild-essential-* packages use cross-architecture dependencies. > This is a rarely used feature and it is not currently supported by > britney. Thus these packages cannot transition before britney is > changed. I am not aware of anyone working on this problem. Adding this > feature to britney could also help with #807312. > > The crossbuild-essential-* packages depend on dpkg-cross, which > currently is RC-buggy and not part of jessie or stretch and thus also > blocking the migration. The dpkg-cross tool is used to convert > architecture-dependent library packages into architecture-independent > packages for use in a pre-multiarch era. It happens to also contain > config.site files, that provide check results to autotool's configure. > The latter is the reason for this dependency. I've just finished a project so plan to spend some time fixing stuff like this which is blocking cross-building in stretch. I plan to either fix dpkg-cross or (better), move the still-useful parts into a 'cross-support' package. Of course I'm happy if someone beats me to it :-) > It seems like these check results should find a new home, but it is not > clear that keeping them in a central place is a good long-term solution. > It also seems that every cross distribution has its own way of > maintaining these, which is sad. I have some ideas floating for > improving, but I put my work on hold to better understand the > requirements. In order to get a better understanding, I am maintaining > these check results on a per-package granularity for rebootstrap[1]. > > Personally, I am hoping for a future where packages that are being > checked ship these check results. As you know I agree that this is probably better, but I still think it's worth making what we currently have at least be shippable. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature