* Mark Brown <broo...@debian.org> [130522 20:01]:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:40:55PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > If the issue is only that the file is broken when zlib is compiled
> > with a cross compiler, wouldn't make more sense to simply fail the
> > build if a cross-compiler is used, instead of introducing the hack
> > of moving the file to an architecture specific directory? (Assuming
> > there are no other bugs in that file making it architecture specific).
>
> You haven't provided any context here so it's difficult to tell what
> you're talking about... I tried opening a web browser and looking at
> the bug log but it's pretty hard to associate your comments with the
> report, this is nothing to do with building the package since Debian
> package builds are always native.
The original bug reports says
| Because the test is built with the cross-compiler when cross-compiling
| it will (in general) not be able to run so if this package is
| cross-built then that line is not replaced. If it is built natively
| then it is replaced. i.e cross and natively built packages have
| different zconf.h files This is a problem when bootstrapping a new
| architecture when low-level libraries like this must be cross-built
| until the arch is self-hosting.
So the only verified case of zconf.h depending on a Debian system on the
build (which would make it not safe for /usr/include in the current
state but needing /usr/include/`dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_MULTIARCH`/)
is about cross-compile architectures.
As you say, Debian packages are usually always build natively, so if it
only fails with cross-compiling, it might not be worth the hassle to
move it into a subdirectory of /usr/include (which causes other problems,
including but not limited to #707537).
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
