liblockfile cross compilation guidance
christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com
Wed Feb 8 11:42:08 UTC 2017
FYI - resolved.
Doko replied on IRC  and we could sort it out to be a valid sync these
They build fine - the old issue was that cross build "worked" but created
binaries of the wrong architecture.
But I verified that the new package is fine in that regard, doing a few
more tests now.
P.S. I just see that Steve replied with about the same content - thanks as
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <
christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com> wrote:
> re-post - this time also reaching out to the full ubuntu-devel list so
> that this could be decided before the impending FF next week.
> *TL;DR:* is just dh/dh_auto_configure cross build safe enough these days
> to allow liblockfile becoming a syncpackage in zesty?
> - Yes a sync should be safe for zesty
> - No, we still need the delta (adapted to new d/rules)
> - No, we want to wait until it stabilized again in Debian and only
> consider it in zesty+1 (I have never touched any of the reverse-depends to
> this so it is hard for me to decide)
> - about the changes in liblockfile: https://github.
> - about the Ubuntu delta, see my older mail forwarded below
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>
> Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:17 PM
> Subject: liblockfile cross compilation guidance
> To: Adam Conrad <adam.conrad at canonical.com>
> Cc: Matthias Klose <matthias.klose at canonical.com>, Jon Grimm <
> jon.grimm at canonical.com>
> I asked on IRC before  but it might have been lost.
> TL;DR: is just dh/dh_auto_configure cross build safe enough these days?
> I need your advise and experience on general packaging and cross
> compilation on that.
> The old change is from you Adam, so I wanted to ask you.
> Similar (to me) changes I've seen often are from Doko, so I set him on CC
> for an extra pack of experience.
> The package liblockfile was all-the-same for quite a while.
> Recently there seems to be an influx of upstream and Debian packaging
> Our only Delta is "Explicitly set CC with DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE if we're
> DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)
> +DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
> +DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE)
> +ifneq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE))
> + export CC = $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc
> + INSTALL += --strip-program=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-strip
> But the new d/rules dropped almost all and uses almost only dh defaults in
> the more recent packaging:
> dh $@
> dh_auto_configure -- --enable-shared --with-mailgroup
> The older Delta is 5 years old since the package didn't change at all.
> But the question that I can't answer alone is, if just
> dh/dh_auto_configure would be cross build safe enough these days?
> And if so if this shall just become a sync then, because that was the only
> delta that is left
> : https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/01/24/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t16:16
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-devel