Le jeudi 11 septembre 2025, 00:05:43 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Matthias Klose a écrit : > On 9/10/25 23:48, Bastien Roucaries wrote: > > Le mercredi 10 septembre 2025, 22:40:59 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Jérémy Lal a écrit : > >> Le mer. 10 sept. 2025 à 21:49, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> a > >> écrit : > >> > >>> Hi. Recent NSD support XDP and install some eBPF *.o files. Upstream > >>> puts them in /usr/share/nsd/ which lintian complains about. > >>> > >>> E: nsd: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > >>> [usr/share/nsd/xdp-dns-redirect_kern.o] > >>> N: > >>> N: This package installs an ELF binary in the /usr/share hierarchy, > >>> which is > >>> N: reserved for architecture-independent files. > >>> > >>> Where is the appropriate place for these files? I tried > >>> /usr/libexec/nsd/ instead but got: > >>> > >>> E: nsd: binary-from-other-architecture > >>> [usr/libexec/nsd/xdp-dns-redirect_kern.o] > >>> N: > >>> N: This ELF binary appears to have been built for an architecture other > >>> than > >>> N: the one of the binary package being tested. This may occur when a > >>> N: pre-built binary is shipped in the package or when an attempt to > >>> N: cross-compile didn't work. > >>> > >>> FWIW, file(1) on such objects (built on amd64) says: > >>> > >>> xdp-dns-redirect_kern.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, eBPF, version 1 > >>> (SYSV), with debug_info, not stripped > >>> > >>> Should we use /usr/lib/nsd? > >>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/nsd/? > >>> /usr/lib/bpf/? > >>> /usr/lib/bpf/nsd/? > >>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/bpf/? > >>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/bpf/nsd/? > >>> > >> > >> Not a specialist, but eBPF ELF files are bytecode for a virtual machine... > >> I'm interested in the correct answer, because somehow it's related to WASM. > >> > > Talk to this a debian multiarch BoF at debian, it is a virual so we must create a arch triplet for this, it is likely a candidate for an specific arch none long term. > > > > for me it is ebpf-none-v1 or > > > > so /usr/lib/ebpf-none-v1/ > > the shortest triplet is bpf, also used by the GNU toolchain. Why would > there be a reason to version these at this point? due to file but if GNU toolchain use bpf we could use bpf > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.