[Pkg-ia32-libs-maintainers] NMU ia32-libs 20100905

Goswin von Brederlow goswin-v-b at web.de
Thu Sep 9 22:35:13 UTC 2010


Philipp Kern <pkern at debian.org> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > The ticket references a non-existing file on mentors.d.n.  Thus I cannot check
>> > if you fixed it correctly.  Just fixing the symlink would've left it broken
>> > because it also needed a ld.so.conf snippet to add /emul/ia32-linux/{usr/,}lib
>> > to the library search path at all.
>> Why should it need a ld.so.conf snipplet to add /emul/...? /lib32 and
>> /usr/lib32 are hardcoded in the ld.so and they link to /emul/... 
>
> To my knowledge /usr/lib32 is not hardcoded in the i386 linker we use on ia64.
> amd64 uses the native linker, so that one has more knowledge than reusing the i386
> one on ia64.

That is one of the things ia32-libs-core is supposed to solve. It uses
the same linker as amd64 does. Uses the same libs too so localization
modules and plugins are searched in the right directories.

The ia32-libs binNMU has build successfully and the dependencies look
good. As soon as the admin signs the package you should be able to
install and test the package.

>> The ia64 upload wasn't tested and has never ever been tested (at least
>> since bdale gave up). None of us have (root) access to ia64 so the best
>> we can do is upload the package blind and then ask the Debian Admins to
>> install it on the ia64 developer machine.
>
> Or asking the admins to work something out, like me telling them what to
> do to get ia32-libs fixed for Lenny.  It's not that they're totally
> uncooperative.

That just feels wrong. It is not their job, it is the porters job.

>> We also rely on bugreports from users to tell us when something is
>> broken. But look at how long it took someone to notice the ld.so link
>> was broken on ia64 (about 6 years). Ia64 seems pretty much dead and the
>> debian-ia64 ML seems equaly non-responsive. All of that together makes
>> it hard to maintain the package.
>
> Right, but then it would make sense to drop it, instead of claiming to
> support it and inventing new solutions like ia32-libs-core.  I do understand
> where you're coming from, but I don't know if it's useful to have a new
> ia64-only solution that nobody looked at before the release.
>
> Kind regards,
> Philipp Kern

How would java build then? As long as there are reverse dependencies it
can't be just droped.

MfG
        Goswin




More information about the Pkg-ia32-libs-maintainers mailing list