Quoting noisyc...@tutanota.com (2024-08-27 11:17:58) > > Sorry, I still don't understand: If my patch effectively does nothing, then > > why do the tests now succeed when they failed without the patch applied? > > What "fixed" the tests is the changes in d/tests/control, not the patch. > Tests passing is the expected behavior if the patch does nothing, because the > build is not prevented anyway and you are still testing with the debug > profile. The job of the patch is to prevent builds, not to make tests pass. > > > Due to accidentally using wrong environment variable, it has even been > > tested that with the patch applied but without disabling optimization the > > build on i386 will fail, emitting the message from the patch. > > Oh I see what's happening there, my bad. While I'm right (it's not > theoretical, I tested this on both amd64 and arm64 and it's a known fact > anyway) in saying that the `cfg` checks in build.rs apply to the build > machine, Debian's infra is not actually cross compiling, but running native > i386 code on amd64, thus the build is not effectively a cross build! I > acknowledge (and you saw that yourself anyway from the message in the build > failure) that your patch should work on Debian infra. > > Where it will fail is if someone tries to actually cross compile rust-wide > for i386, e.g. if not building on amd64 or if building on amd64 but not > natively for i386. Since this is not done by default on Debian infra, my > patch is not strictly necessary. It may still be an improvement, to keep > consistency between native and cross builds, but not necessary.
Ahh, I understand now. Thank you very much. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
