Re: Request for access to porterbox
On 07/28/2016 08:52 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:56:11AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> That works now? When I set up a SH4 chroot a while back, I had to
>> use the qemu-sh4-static binary from the i386 version of the
>> qemu-user-static package, because the amd64 version was broken.
>> (Luckily, static linking.)
>
> #805827 which is an ex-bug.
Cool. :)
>> Plus, aptitude is broken on many (but not all) archs when used
>> together with qemu-user-static (segfaults), so if you use that
>> kind of chroot together with pbuilder, in my experience you need
>> to revert to the classic satisfydepends (which is much slower)
>> to make pbuilder work properly.
>
> As debootstrap uses regular apt rather than aptitude, why would this be a
> concern?
For debootstrap? No. For pbuilder? Yes.
> And aptitude's dependency resolution is broken more often than
> not, so sticking with apt is more reliable also on the installed system.
If you are using pbuilder, then it defaults to aptitude to satisfy
the build dependencies of a package. There are alternatives, such
as the classic (shell script based) resolution scheme, but they
have some problems. My point was that if you want to use such a
chroot to automatically build packages via pbuilder, then you need
to tell pbuilder to not use aptitude - while for native archs the
default works well.
>> ppc64el needs QEMU_CPU=POWER8. (qemu-static-ppc64 and -ppc64el
>> are basically the same save for endianness, but Debian's pp64el
>> port requires a POWER8 CPU at least, whereas the ppc64 port runs
>> on POWER5 and higher IIRC.)
>
> #813698, an ex bug.
Cool. :)
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: