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

Bug#766708: Processed: Re: Bug#766708: breaks multiarch cross building

+++ Don Armstrong [2014-11-19 16:41 -0800]:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > I have to admit that the code is not exactly lightweight. I do
> > understand the desire to get rid it and asked that a ctte ruling does
> > not apply beyond jessie for that reason.
> Are people who are doing cross-building like this actually using the
> code which will be in jessie? I (perhaps naïvely) would expect them to
> be primarily using the code in unstable, and maybe at a late stage of
> bring-up rebuilding all of stable.

I think you are right, at least for a while. 
The situation is as follows: 


The only cross-toolchains currently available for jessie are built
using with_deps_... and are available (outside the archive) to be
installed. They will be updated if the gcc version in jessie is. 

I'm not sure to what degree anyone else will be doing much rebuilding
of these packages. People might try (e.g. I just tried rebuilding them
in Utopic as someone asked if that would work). 


I am building cross-toolchains against each new gcc-4.9 upload to
unstable, using the code in unstable, and expect to keep doing
this. Those builds also use the with_deps.. method, and thus currently
need the with_deps.. disabling patched out to work. The build method
may change during the life of unstable, but how that will play out is
not clear yet.

So for me I expect to be using this functionality in unstable much
more than in jessie which should be more or less stable now.

Again I'm not sure how much other people will be rebuilding these
packages or otherwise building cross-toolchains from gcc. There will
certainly be some, especially if rebuilds in unstable are not kept
up-to-date (currently a manual process of fresh cross-gcc-* source
uploads, but we plan to automate this). Boostrapping tests will do it
regularly. New porters will do it. 

Currently everyone will be using with_deps because that's the choice
(after patching gcc). They may choose to build the standalone way once
it's actually working.

At least 3 of us are prepared to maintain the with-deps packaging
rules. IMHO it makes a lot more sense to maintain it in gcc packagig
where it already is rather than do it outside as a big quilt stack,
but that won't work if the maintainer doesn't apply patches. I
just filed 770413, for example.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Reply to: