summary 771496 If anything you are doing would fail after the removal of dpkg-cross, you're doing it wrong. It's going away, whether you want it to or not. thanks Just a follow-up on dpkg-cross, for the benefit of anyone reviewing the list of RC bugs. > You are missing an important aspect here: dpkg-cross is currently the > only way to build a cross compiler from src:gcc-4.9. Sorry, I did not miss that aspect: your statement is incorrect. Clean pbuilder sid chroot: # dpkg --add-architecture armhf # apt-get -qq update # apt-get build-dep cross-gcc-4.9-armhf Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following NEW packages will be installed: autoconf autoconf2.64 autogen autotools-dev binutils-arm-linux-gnueabihf bison bsdmainutils chrpath cross-gcc-dev debhelper diffstat expect file flex gawk gcc-4.9-base:armhf gcc-4.9-source gdb gettext gettext-base groff-base guile-2.0-libs intltool-debian libasprintf0c2 libbison-dev libc6:armhf libc6-dev:armhf libcloog-isl-dev libcroco3 libexpat1 libffi6 libfl-dev libgc1c2 libgcc1:armhf libglib2.0-0 libgmp-dev libisl-dev libltdl7 libmagic1 libmpc-dev libmpfr-dev libopts25 libopts25-dev libpipeline1 libpython-stdlib libpython2.7 libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib libsigsegv2 libssl1.0.0 libtcl8.6 libtool libunistring0 libxml2 linux-libc-dev:armhf m4 man-db mime-support netbase patchutils po-debconf python python-minimal python2.7 python2.7-minimal quilt realpath sharutils systemtap-sdt-dev tcl-expect zip zlib1g-dev dpkg-cross is not mentioned in that list. Not only is it not the only way to build a cross compiler from src:gcc-4.9, it is not even the default way to build a cross-compiler from src:gcc-4.9. Nothing about building a cross-compiler or using a cross-compiler on Debian unstable has to have anything at all to do with dpkg-cross - except that some packages need data from those config files. Even that can be patched in locally if someone has need. Such steps are a lot less work than has been required to get packages to cross-build previously. It is a shame that cross-gcc-4.9-armhf couldn't get into Jessie but then, ever since the Wheezy release, cross-building in Jessie has been a case of downgrading to Wheezy (or Squeeze) or upgrading to unstable (or experimental) anyway. In many ways, it is only fitting that dpkg-cross gets removed from Jessie as it makes it clear about the status of cross-building in Jessie - absent. > You may want to (re)discuss this with the > > gcc maintainer: He does not seem to be aware of this deprecation and > > declares dpkg-cross supported. Matthias is aware of my personal feelings towards dpkg-cross and the horrors that it spawned (apt-cross and xapt) - I've spoken to him at length, face-to-face, a couple of times. He knows that I have been trying to kill dpkg-cross for at least two release cycles already. If it had been possible, I would have removed dpkg-cross when apt-cross had to be removed - instead I needed to write xapt, a program I bitterly regret needing to create. Yes, there is no formal deprecation notice in the dpkg-cross manpage but that is due to the following reasons: 0: lack of support & maintenance is one reason for deprecating it - no upload for 8 months. 1: the replacement toolchains never made it into Jessie, so there was no time to upload dpkg-cross with such changes and get those changes into Jessie once the replacements were shown to be working. There is no way that a deprecation notice in dpkg-cross would meet the Freeze Policy. 2: the problems of cross-building on jessie have been well known since the wheezy release and all the work went into trying to get the correct methods working. My personal feeling is that dpkg-cross never deserved to be in the main archive - it should have stayed in the Emdebian toolchain repositories - but I was not involved in dpkg-cross at that time, I had to work with it where was. As I've already said, it was never possible for dpkg-cross to be Policy compliant. It is designed to break Policy. The irony is that it will finally be removed from testing for doing explicitly what it was designed to do. That is fine by me, I wanted it gone a long time ago. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp5zUVnfFgeg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature