Re: Dependencies of linux-headers-<arch> packages

[Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de>]

Hi Felix,

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:33:22AM +0000, Moessbauer, Felix wrote:
> In general I agree, but here the situation is a bit different:
> The dependency to the host compiler (e.g. arm64) is too narrow.

Wrong. It certainly is not and beyond that, this aspect is not weakened.
It still requires a particular version of gcc for the relevant
architecture.

> In general, any gcc compiler in the correct version should do.

Wrong. Ben explained why this is not desired and his patch does not
relax this aspect.

> As discussed earlier the linux-headers -> compiler dependency is just a convenience dep.
> I proposed to remove it or move it to the "recommends" section.

Yes, you proposed that. But it was not an accepted solution and it is
not what Ben's patch does.

> But the proposed solution might be better as it maintains backwards compatibility.

Ben's solution is a workaround. The linux packaging is already complex
in this regard. We need to reduce complexity, not add to it.

> For users that just want to cross-compile a module, there is simply no reason why the have to install the compiler for the host architecture (e.g. arm64).

The essence of cross compilation is a compiler that targets the host
architecture. Of course, you do need it for cross compiling a kernel
module.

> And this use-case is perfectly solved in the patch from Ben.

We seem to be in disagreement of what "perfect" means. Any time, you
iterate over architectures in your dependencies, things are certainly
not perfect as every new architecture will require manual work. Manual
per-architecture work does not qualify as "perfect" to me. While it
solves your use case, it incurs a maintenance cost where a solution with
less cost is available.

Helmut