RE: Bug#931164: xautolock FTCBFS: build for the wrong architecture
Hi Helmut,
I fixed them at the same time but something happened made this committed
late.
Sorry for this inconvenience. I'll try to fix the bug you mentioned.
Thanks and best regards,
Tungnh
-----Original Message-----
From: Helmut Grohne [mailto:helmut@subdivi.de]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 2:30 AM
To: Nguyen Hoang Tung; 931164-maintonly@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-cross@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#931164: xautolock FTCBFS: build for the wrong architecture
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:34:25PM +0700, Nguyen Hoang Tung wrote:
> xautolock fails to cross build because it does not pass cross build
> tools to make. Using "dh_auto_build" instead of "$(MAKE)" can solve this
problem.
Can you briefly pause filing more patches? Overriding the C compiler in a
xmkmf-generated Makefile is wrong and I told you twice at least. Yet you
continue to file these patches. Please stop. This is harmful.
Longer rationale:
xmkmf runs the (build architecture) C compiler to derive compiler
properties. These then affect the generated Makefiles. If the architectures
are similar enough, this may work somewhat, but in general, it does not.
Unfortunately, we cannot pass a host compiler to xmkmf, because xmkmf
insists on running compiled code. We have concluded that it is not
reasonable to fix xmkmf and that a different build system should be used.
See #873764. Using subtly wrong flags makes the build unreproducible and in
the worst case yields a failure that is difficult to diagnose. The route of
overriding the compiler is going to cause much pain down the road.
Please go through all of the bugs you filed. If they convert make to
dh_auto_build while using xmkmf, please follow in one of the following
ways:
* Close the bug as not actionable.
* Remove the patch tag and retitle them as "stop using xmkmf".
* Retitle them as "stop using xmkmf" and supply a patch. Use a popular
build system of your choice.
Helmut
--
This mail was scanned by BitDefender
For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com
--
This mail was scanned by BitDefender
For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com
Reply to: