Re: StrongARM tactics
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>
>> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> ucko@debian.org (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
>
>> >> > Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de> writes:
>
>> >> >> +pcsx: i386 # i386 assembly
>
>> >> > AFAICT, this is only because its Linux/Makefile forces CPU to ix86
>> >> > unconditionally.
>
>> >> Write patch. At a minimum the package should be "i386 amd64". In
>> >> general anything with "Arch: i386" should add amd64.
>
>> > And is that certain to give a working 64-bit binary on amd64, or are you
>> > suggesting that we ship extra copies of 32-bit binaries for both i386 and
>> > amd64?
>
>> The later if the former is not working. Since we have no multiarch yet
>> and acceptance of patches leading up to it is going very slowly it
>> looks like etch will remain without multiarch. So we need the extra
>> copy to have something working.
>
> And for this you want to add hackish patches to console emulator packages?
> I think the amd64 port can live for a while without a Playstation emulator
> while we sort out how to cope with cross-installing of i386 packages.
What about it is hackish? It can be as simple as just adding "-m32" to
CFLAGS on amd64 (and ia64) and adding the right Build-Depends on the
32bit devel libs (ia32-libs-dev). We already have this for lilo, grub,
some other bootloader I can never remember. Other packages for this
sort of thing are wine and if you want to go crazy even OOo.
But again, what about it is hackish?
>> >> Also pcsx should not be in P-A-S (and isn't on cvs.d.o) because:
>> ...
>> >> wanna-build already filters the Architecture field of sources.
>
>> Small correction, quinn-diff does the actual filtering (here).
>
>> > No, it does not. It goes to the buildds with every sourceful upload, and
>> > fails when sbuild checks the architecture list.
>
>> Hmm, must be just me then. Here quinn-diff already filters it out so
>> it doesn't reaches wanna-build itself. But that might just be one of
>> the several small differences to the official buildd suite.
>
>> mrvn@storage:~/t% quinn-diff 2>&1 | grep pcsx
>> [quinn-diff]: ignoring: pcsx has an architecture field of "i386" which
>> doesn't include amd64.
>
> Right; it is quinn-diff that does the filtering; and the quinn-diff on
> buildd.d.o does not filter on the package-provided Architecture: list.
>
>> Makes no sense to include a source not for this arch.
>
> On the contrary, I think it's a bad idea for quinn-diff to look at package
> Architecture: fields directly, just like it would be a bad idea for dak to
> let maintainers change Section: values directly. You want porter oversight
> of the list of packages that are being excluded on an arch, and having these
> show up as build failures gives you that oversight.
The quinn diff warning suites that fine. Just let the cron job report
any differences in its stderr output.
I fail to see how downloading the source, extracting the source,
downloading and installing all Build-Depends, seeing there is nothing
to do and cleaning it all up again is doing anything but waste
valuable time. (Or does sbuild fail before the Build-Depends? Scratch
those then.)
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: