[Pkg-oss4-maintainers] Help (voodoo, really) needed [Re: failed i386 build of iceweasel 11.0~b1-2]

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:08:59PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 07:00:32PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:40:28PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Mike Hommey, le Fri 17 Feb 2012 18:36:56 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:23:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > > Mike Hommey, le Fri 17 Feb 2012 18:09:37 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > > > > sydney_audio_alsa.c:504:5: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Would anyone have a clue as to what the hell is happening?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unpacking liboss4-salsa-dev (from .../liboss4-salsa-dev_4.2-build2005-2_armel.deb) ...
> > > > > Selecting previously unselected package libtinfo-dev.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know why the buildds preferred liboss4-salsa-dev over
> > > > > libasound2-dev.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my previous packaging of oss4's alsa-over-OSS emulation, I had only
> > > > > enabled the -dev in the non-linux archs.  In the current packaging, it's
> > > > > enabled in all of them.  I've now restricted it in oss4 too. Oss4
> > > > > packagers, any opinion against it?
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, so OSS4 provides an Alsa API that is not compatible with Alsa's.
> > > 
> > > It *is* compatible.  With an older version of the API, which used void
> > > there.
> > 
> > So, it's compatible with an API that is older than Alsa v1.0.10rc1,
> > released 7 years ago. What is surprising, however, is that Alsa didn't
> > change its soname for the resulting ABI change...
> 
> It's a compatible change; at least I don't know of a C architecture
> ABI where replacing a void return type with int would be incompatible.

The problem comes when you run something that uses the int variant and
expects a sound result, against the version that returns a void, which
in practice probably means returning the first argument on a lot of
architectures, if the register is not overwritten in the function body.
That's not exactly what i'd call compatibility.

Mike