> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:33:42 (CEST), Philipp Kern wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:59:46AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:52:45PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: >>> > I think that's a misconfiguration of the buildds. They're >>> supposed to > put linux32 into the schroot configuration if the >>> kernel arch differs > from the userspace arch, to get the right >>> entry into uname. Negative. The build have to work with even a >>> complete different kernel architecture. >> >> Since when do we require this? I don't think we do that. It might >> be a goal, which you are free to propose. (Mainly useful to build >> the right packages on i386 userland with an amd64 kernel.) The >> status quo is that such build failures are not RC, AFAIK. > In the mean time, I've uploaded this patch: > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=commitdiff;h=27301ced78552bd4a95a9502cb67acd58b3fd297 > As far I understand this discussion, it is no longer necessary. Please > tell me if I should revert it, or if it is a good idea nevertheless. Well, if it allows people like me to just do 'apt-get source' and 'dpkg-buildpackage' without thinking about which kernel they run, it does more good than harm, doesn't it :) Maybe the really correct, and right way to fix that, though, is to patch the configure script to check for the ABI used by $CC instead of 'uname -m'. That kind of fix could then also go upstream. just my 2 cents. cheers, David -- GnuPG public key: http://dvdkhlng.users.sourceforge.net/dk.gpg Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205 D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40
Attachment:
pgptla9PI_wM3.pgp
Description: PGP signature