Hi, Quoting Andrea Pappacoda (2024-07-16 01:56:22) > You made me notice that I did not mark the package as MA:same. I don't > remember if I did this on purpose, but now that I look at it I really think > it should be marked as such. yes. > > What prevents you from keeping the upstream change but also keeping the > > current situation with libxbyak-dev being Arch:any? Since the package is > > only suitable for a select architectures, I think arch:any is superior to > > having it arch:all. > Nothing really, but I find it a bit odd to ship a Arch:any package which > installs a pkg-config file in /usr/share. It would work for cross builds, but > would also work in regular user builds outside (the ones performed outside of > Debian package building). If a user installs libxbyak-dev:i386 on an arm64 > machine, then its native arm64 pkg-config would find and reply with the > contents of the .pc file under /usr/share even when performing > non-cross-builds. Right? This would break a bit my expectations: when I > install something to cross build, I wouldn't expect it to also become > available for non-cross builds, especially because it wouldn't actually work. Ah okay, now I understand that you also have considerable influence on the upstream development. In that case, I think I like your argument. Putting pkg-config files in paths that are *not* architecture qualified will defeat the purpose of making them only findable when building for x86 architectures. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature