On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:58:58AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 07:53:34PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-23 17:13]: > > > I don't completely know how to proceed here. (And is this the > > > appropriate place?)
> > The s390 autobuilder should stop building with 's390x' as uname. > > waldi has been told several times before that these bugs are not RC > > but he won't listen. > Shouldn't x86 buildds build with 'i386' as uname, then ? AFAIK, they consistently build with 'i686' as uname, even when they're 64-bit hardware because the buildds run under linux32. The issue isn't that uname -m needs to match the dpkg-architecture name, which it often does not; it's that buildds should return a value for uname that can be consistently mapped to an architecture name. s390x is a different kernel interface from s390. Packages for the s390 Debian architecture should build and run with the s390 kernel personality; building them against the s390x personality means not only that there's no guarantee the Debian packages are correctly built for the 32-bit ABI, there's also no verification that they /can/ build correctly on s390. The behavior of qt is still a problem because it treats all differences in uname -m values as ABI-breaking, and uname -m is certainly not guaranteed to give identical results across all hosts of a given architecture. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
