Bug#961159: lib32{,x}gcc-s1: please provide lib{,x}32gcc1 (= 1:${binary:Version})
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:02:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 8/13/20 11:49 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:25:21AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> On 8/12/20 11:16 PM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> >>>> On 21/05/2020 14.05, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/20/20 10:32 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> >>>>>> With the transitional packages gone in 10.1.0-2, please add versioned
> >>>>>> (epoched!) provides on the old names (as already done in libgcc-s1)
> >>>>>> in order to keep old packages installable along the latest gcc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to avoid that. Please build the nvidia packages using the new package
> >>>>> names.
> >>>>
> >>>> This has nothing to do with nvidia. This breaks keeping old compilers
> >>>> around, which so far worked fine for a long time.
> >>>
> >>> Seconded. I have all versions of gcc starting at 4.4 that I would like
> >>> to keep, but the upgrade require to remove them.
> >>
> >> I don't want to do that. What exactly depends on the non-default multilib libraries?
> >
> > # apt-get dist-upgrade
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > g++-4.4-multilib g++-4.5-multilib g++-4.6-multilib g++-4.7-multilib g++-5-multilib
> > g++-6-multilib gcc-4.4-multilib gcc-4.5-multilib gcc-4.6-multilib gcc-4.7-multilib
> > gcc-5-multilib gcc-6-multilib lib32asan0 lib32asan1 lib32asan2 lib32asan3 lib32asan4
> > lib32cilkrts5 lib32gcc-4.7-dev lib32gcc-4.8-dev lib32gcc-4.9-dev
> > lib32gcc-5-dev
> > lib32gcc-6-dev lib32gcc-7-dev lib32gcc1 lib32stdc++-4.9-dev
> > lib32stdc++-5-dev
> > lib32stdc++-6-dev lib32stdc++6-4.7-dev lib32ubsan0
> > libclang-common-5.0-dev libgc1c2 libgcc1
> > libx32asan0 libx32asan1 libx32asan2 libx32asan3 libx32asan4
> > libx32cilkrts5 libx32gcc-4.7-dev
> > libx32gcc-5-dev libx32gcc-6-dev libx32gcc-7-dev libx32gcc1
> > libx32stdc++-5-dev
> > libx32stdc++-6-dev libx32stdc++6-4.7-dev libx32ubsan0
>
> ok, so this is for the multilib compiler packages only. The default multilib is
> not affected by this change.
>
> > libgcc-s1 Provides: libgcc1 (= 1:10-20200418-1) which is OK.
> > However lib32gcc-s1 does not provides lib32gcc1 (= 1:10-20200418-1)
> > so packages depending on lib32gcc1 are broken.
> >
> > I like to add: I have all these compilers available for test purpose
> > on my system thanks to your hard work packaging gcc over so many years.
> > It is really neat. It would be sad to lose all this now.
>
> You have those available in i386/x32 chroots as well.
Building such i386 chroots now would require heavy use of snaphots.debian.org,
and would be much less convenient.
> Also there are amd64 ->
> i386 cross compilers for the newer versions. Is it really necessary to keep the
> non-default multilib builds?
What is the cost of adding this Provides ?
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: