On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 18:29:50 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Gregor,
Hi Helmut,
thanks for taking the time to write this long and detailed email!
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 06:27:19PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > I played around a bit:
> > - crosscompiled the package as is from amd64->i386 (with pbuilder's
> > --host-arch) and it failed
> > - created a patch similar to [0] using ExtUtils::PkgConfig [1]
> I believe our goal should be to somehow make that patch of yours work,
> because it is a natural way to write it and I expect other upstreams to
> do it that way. To me, this looks like the better solution even though
> it does not work right now. If you use that, you don't fix the FTCBFS,
> but you push the problem elsewhere and it no longer is
> libnet-z3950-zoom-perl that needs changes to fix it. ;)
I already "fixed" libnet-z3950-zoom-perl by applying your patch but
that shouldn't prevent us from taking a look at the underlying issue
(hence To and Subject adjusted).
> > Hm, does libextutils-pkgconfig-perl (arch:all) need "Multi-Arch: foreign"?
> That is the right way of looking at it.
Thanks :)
> My answer here is maybe.
Hm :)
> It depends on how you define it. We want
> ExtUtils::PkgConfig->cflags to yield flags for the "host" architecture,
> but what "host" means from a libextutils-pkgconfig-perl view is not
> entirely clear. It could be that we communicate the architecture to
> libextutils-pkgconfig-perl via its dependency and then it certainly
> would not be architecture-independent as we'd expect a
> libextutils-pkgconfig-perl:amd64 to behave differently from a
> libextutils-pkgconfig-perl:i386 one. The other way is that you somehow
> pass the architecture at runtime via some variable (explicit or
> implicit, argument or global or environment). In that way, the
> architecture is part of your input and we expect it to yield the same
> flags if given the same architecture and then the answer would be yes.
The latter sounds more attractive to me.
> The other way to look at it is looking at its dependencies. It depends
> on pkg-config, which is an architecture-dependent package (because each
> pkg-config:$arch provides the $triplet-pkg-config entry point). If
> libextutils-pkgconfig-perl uses this entry point, it must be its package
> architecture that defines what "host" is as it forwards this
> architecture on its dependency. Otherwise, it can only call into
> pkg-config via /usr/bin/pkg-config, but then it gets the results for the
> build architecture, which isn't what we wanted.
> So without further modifications, we cannot just mark it Multi-Arch:
> foreign (and that also is the reason why I didn't file a bug asking for
> that yet).
Ack.
So if ExtUtils::PkgConfig calls /usr/bin/$prefix-pkgconf (with
$prefix derived from the host architecture), we should be good with
"Multi-Arch: foreign"?
> Any time we want to use libextutils-pkgconfig-perl in a package build,
> we need to ensure that our installation set contains a pkg-config for
> the host architecture. No matter how we do it, as long as it remains
> Architecture: all, it technically has no way of requesting the host
> architecture's pkg-config via its own dependencies, so the only way to
> keep it Architecture: all is to state that any package that declares a
> build dependency on libextutils-pkgconfig-perl must also declare a build
> dependency on pkg-config.
Hm, probably doesn't scale and is prone to errors.
> The other way is converting it to
> Architecture: any + Multi-Arch: same (this conversion is often dubbed
> "the multiarch interpreter workaround for the multiarch interpreter
> problem"). Once doing this a regular build dependency (which is
> implicitly constrained to the host architecture) gets its architecture
> constraint passed through to the pkg-config dependency and stuff might
> work.
Also not very elegant, and also error-prone, as you write:
> I note that this also poses a very unusual use of the architecture
> qualification of the libextutils-pkgconfig-perl module. For most other
> perl modules, the expectation of an architecture-qualified dependency is
> that you can load the module (and any extension modules that it
> transitively depends on) into a perl interpreter of said architecture.
> With libextutils-pkgconfig-perl, there are no extension modules (outside
> core perl) involved, so this does not matter. Rather the above
> interprets the architecture qualification as a means of requesting
> package configuration for the qualified architecture. Such an
> inconsistency is prone to biting us later, so maybe the route of pushing
> the need to depend on pkg-config down to the consumer is the better
> choice in the end.
> Note that all of this only looks at the packaging metadata only. I
> haven't yet implied anything about the implementation of
> libextutils-pkgconfig-perl that also likely needs to change to support
> such use.
Ack.
> The bottom line roughly is "it's difficult". I hope we can agree with
> that.
Totally.
> > If I put ExtUtils::PkgConfig manually into ./ExtUtils/PkgConfig.pm
> > and run the Makefile.PL call from above manually with an additional
> > -I. I get:
[…]
> This likely is due to libextutils-pkgconfig-perl not prepending the
> toolchain prefix to pkg-config and thus using the build architecture
> (likely amd64) one.
*nod*
> That's the other piece of the puzzle, we need to
> enhance ExtUtils::PkgConfig to somehow pick up the toolchain prefix from
> the perl Config.pm and we pass
> -I/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/perl/cross-config-5.38.2 to supply a config
> matching the host architecture. To make matters worse, the toolchain
> prefix isn't readily available in there. I suppose the best we could do
> is examine cc and strip "-gcc", but that's a hack at best. Possibly perl
> needs to record this value or it needs to be passed in some other way.
That's a question for Niko and Dom, if we can get this variable into
%Config.
> The bottom line roughly is "it's difficult". I hope we can agree with
> that.
Yes, but it doesn't look that different to my naïve eyes:
- All that ExtUtils::PkgConfig does is calling `pkg-config'
- If we need to change it to call `/usr/bin/$prefix-pkg-config',
we need the $prefix.
- If we can't get it from %Config directly, we could abuse
$Config{cc}, as you write; not elegant but well.
- I wonder, and maybe this is too trivial to be true, if we couldn't
just use `dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE'?
> > And in the end ExtUtils::PkgConfig just calls `pkg-config`, so any
> > prefix would need to be found and added there. Alright, sorry for the
> > detour :)
> Thank you for the detour. I think you're spot-on. If you want to further
> this adventure, I'm happy to continue.
I think I'm happy to continue as well.
> Making ExtUtils::PkgConfig just
> work would fix a pile of packages and make for fewer patches and thus
> less maintenance cost. I'm not looking for quick solutions with
> long-term maintenance costs, but for good solutions with low permanent
> costs.
Ack.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
: :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
`. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature