Bug#891005: RFS: gdbm/1.14.1-5
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hello!
>!Important! This upload re-enables diet libc support {conditional, via
>build profiles}. Input from developers, experienced with Debian
>bootstrap is very, very welcome.
Since this is causing troubles in Ubuntu (Matthias, please give your opinion here),
because dietlibc is in main, and gives also troubles to maintain the list of dietlibc
architectures where it is available, since it causes troubles using dietlibc
(the build seems failing), I would prefer to actually implement it again once dietlibc folks
makes the whole stuff *working*.
Right now the approach is not usable, and makes things harder for Ubuntu and Debian.
(e.g. in Ubuntu we should conditionalize and remove it, with something like
if dpkg-vendor --derives-from Ubuntu; then
HAVE_DIETLIBC=nofi
but even in that case, the pulling of build-dependencies from universe will cause mismatches in the
archive.
I would prefer a patch from dietlibc folks, with an use case of *why* they need this static library,
rather than building/including something that caused 4 bugs in Debian, a lot of pain in Ubuntu
(and probably was even broken).
The other stuff looks good to me :)
What is your opinion? I would like to understand why we need this, and if this had even worked.
G.
Reply to: