On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 00:28 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2019-08-08 22:23, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > > 1a. Require 32-bit build environments to be multiarch with the > > related 64-bit architecture also enabled. > > Indeed, but that looks like the first step. From there do you think > a) the package is responsible for build-depending on the 64-bit > toolchain and calling it with the right option to generate 32-bit > binaries? > or > b) the build environment should be already configured to make the > 64-bit toolchain available transparently > > I had option b) in mind, but option a) looks way easier to implement on > the infrastructure side, although a bit less on the packaging side. It > can also be a first step towards b). Yes - if relatively few packages are hitting the limits, I think it makes sense to implement (a) in the short term fix for them, then work on (b) as the longer term solution. > In that case we should also make > sure that using a 64-bit compiler doesn't switch the package build > system to a cross-compilation mode, where notably the testsuite is > disabled. Right. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If you seem to know what you are doing, you'll be given more to do.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part