On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Riku Voipio wrote: > On armel architecture, the symbol differences have usually been > inlined softfloat symbols being exported. Which is additional symbols > and would thus not break symbol checking (if I understood correctly).
Yes. > What is more worrying is the lack of unofficial arch information in mole. You're welcome to help make it available. mole is hosted on merkel, its source code is on a public repository. Jeroen seemed to think that it shouldn't be too difficult to do. Jeroen, can you look into it? > Thus maintainers are not aware of issues with their packages on > unofficial archs until someeon files a bug. That's true even for official arches in many cases. :) Anyway, I have nothing against adding support for unofficial arches on mole but the unofficial arches need to be made available in some coherent archive to not have to hardcode an URL for each unofficial arch. Be that gnuab.org or doorstep.debian.net, it doesn't matter much. > > Though it's worth asking ourselves if it would make sense to have an > > intermediary fallback between debian/*.symbols.<arch> and > > debian/*.symbols that would be debian/*.symbols.<kernel>. > > One option would be to use dpkg-architecture provided variables: I know that, it's precisely because it's easy to do that I suggested it. If it's useful, I'll implement it. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
