Fwd: liblockfile cross compilation guidance

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: liblockfile cross compilation guidance

Christian Ehrhardt
Hi,
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?

Options:
  • 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)

Details:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Ehrhardt <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:17 PM
Subject: liblockfile cross compilation guidance
To: Adam Conrad <[hidden email]>
Cc: Matthias Klose <[hidden email]>, Jon Grimm <[hidden email]>


Hi,
I asked on IRC before [1] 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.

Background:
The package liblockfile was all-the-same for quite a while.
Recently there seems to be an influx of upstream and Debian packaging activity.

Our only Delta is "Explicitly set CC with DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE if we're cross-compiling."
 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
+endif



But the new d/rules dropped almost all and uses almost only dh defaults in the more recent packaging:
%:
        dh $@

override_dh_auto_configure:
        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


-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: liblockfile cross compilation guidance

Steve Langasek-6
Hi Christian,

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 10:40:59AM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 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?

Best is to verify this by setting up a cross chroot for yourself and test,
following the instructions at:

  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CrossBuilding

Since the package uses autoconf, dh_auto_configure *normally* is sufficient
in order to support cross-building.  But please validate this if you're
changing the build scripts as part of a merge.

> *Options:*
>
>    - 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)
>
>
> *Details:*
>
>    - about the changes in liblockfile:
>    https://github.com/miquels/liblockfile/blob/master/Changelog
>    - about the Ubuntu delta, see my older mail forwarded below
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:17 PM
> Subject: liblockfile cross compilation guidance
> To: Adam Conrad <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Matthias Klose <[hidden email]>, Jon Grimm <
> [hidden email]>
>
>
> Hi,
> I asked on IRC before [1] 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.
>
> Background:
> The package liblockfile was all-the-same for quite a while.
> Recently there seems to be an influx of upstream and Debian packaging
> activity.
>
> Our only Delta is "Explicitly set CC with DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE if we're
> cross-compiling."
>  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
> +endif
>
>
>
> But the new d/rules dropped almost all and uses almost only dh defaults in
> the more recent packaging:
> %:
>         dh $@
>
> override_dh_auto_configure:
>         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
>
> [1]: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/01/24/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t16:16
>
> --
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd

> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel


--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[hidden email]                                     [hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: liblockfile cross compilation guidance

Christian Ehrhardt
In reply to this post by Christian Ehrhardt
FYI - resolved.

Doko replied on IRC [1] and we could sort it out to be a valid sync these days.

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 well.


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
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?

Options:
  • 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)

Details:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Ehrhardt <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:17 PM
Subject: liblockfile cross compilation guidance
To: Adam Conrad <[hidden email]>
Cc: Matthias Klose <[hidden email]>, Jon Grimm <[hidden email]>


Hi,
I asked on IRC before [1] 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.

Background:
The package liblockfile was all-the-same for quite a while.
Recently there seems to be an influx of upstream and Debian packaging activity.

Our only Delta is "Explicitly set CC with DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE if we're cross-compiling."
 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
+endif



But the new d/rules dropped almost all and uses almost only dh defaults in the more recent packaging:
%:
        dh $@

override_dh_auto_configure:
        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


-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd



--
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel