Re: Working on dpkg-checkbuilddeps support for dpkg-cross
> Hi Nikita,
Hello
> how are you?
Just set up a compex network config for a notebook. It now automatically
configures wireless lan when ethernet cable is detached, and deconfigures
when it is attached back.
Non-reentrant ifup/iufdown suxxx...
> I intent to start support for dpkg-checkbuilddeps for dpkg-cross.
> The idear is simple. dpkg-override the original dpkg-checkbuilddeps
> file with a extended implementation which calls dpkg-checkbuilddeps
> after conversion of the debian/control file in sence of dpkg-cross.
>
> The 'keepdeps' and 'ignoredebs' settings take efect for
> dpkg-checkbuilddeps too.
>
Probably s/dpkg-override/dpkg-divert :)
What algorithm are you going to use for convertion?
You know, some build-deps should be kept as-is, and some should be changed
to -arch-cross. A good alrorithm is to convert (to -$arch-cross) packages
from lib and libdevel sections, while keeping all the rest as-is. But
information of package sections is not easily available. Converting
everything by default and using only 'keepdeps' and 'ignoredeps' to
override is a bad idea IMHO. It will make these lists completely
unmaintainable. And 'ignoredeps' will become package-dependent.
> An another comment. I saw that you worked on dpkg-shlibdeps for
> dpkg-cross. In my TODO list I've a issue about dh_shlibdeps -l<path>
> where LD_LIBRARY_PATH is exteded with <path> before dpkg-shlibdeps
> is called. Do you considered this issue too in you rework?
I still fail to understand what the issue actually is. Dpkg-shlibdeps from
dpkg-cross does not need any access to shared libraries to do it's job. It
only uses objdump on executables.
Or probably you are faced by problem described at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/11/msg00943.html
I'm thinking of 'fixing' this issue, by implementing same undocumented
logic as original dpkg-shlibdeps does. But I still believe that a better
fix is to bug all affected packages to stop depending on undocumented
behaviour of dpkg-shlibdeps.
Nikita
Reply to: