Hi all, [...]
> > Hum, and it's not a missing dependency to libc6-dev ? (I'm maybe wrong) > > Yeah, seems to me as well. I'll try to test it out. We were both wrong - sys/io.h does not exist on the architectures in question, for example: http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/mips/libc6-dev-mips64/filelist The calls used are 'inb', 'outb' and friends (see 'man inb') and are architecture-specific therefore I think we should restrict build to only architectures that provide io.h (as Johann proposed). There may be a slight chance to build them (see https://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2002-04/msg00085.html), but I wouldn't bother unless somebody files a bug :). Now, that poses a question whether we should restrict hwinfo in a similar way. The old hwinfo is BD-Uninstallable on non-Linux archs (because it depends on linux-kernel-headers, see https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=hwinfo) and therefore it won't build on hurd, kfreebsd, etc. My proposal is to: 1) release a new version of libx86emu 1.4-2 with Sebastien's fixes and restricted architectures (btw. Seb, can you update changelog with git-dch --auto ? I tried to do it myself, but I didn't know how to describe some of your changes) 2) release hwinfo with explicit dependency on the above so that it will be automatically BD-Uninstallable for architectures that were restricted by libx86emu package It's not perfect, but it will let us finally release hwinfo. Moreover, I have doubts that anybody will miss hwinfo on the restricted architectures. If so, a bug will be created and we'll start to worry, right? I pushed the restricted version of libx86emu to the git repository. Both libx86emu and hwinfo build lintian-clean in my jessie pbuilder (well, excepting debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature, to be fair). Hwinfo debian/control must be updated if you agree what I said above. Cheers, Tomasz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
