On 12.09.24 19:56, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 12:19 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Hi Ben,
Dropping leader@ and community@ from Cc as this is a technical
side-track.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:38:24AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 02:13 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
My answers below are mine alone. I have not discussed this with other
team members and do not speak for them.
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hello kernel maintainers,
While potential solutions to this bug are being discussed, would you
please consider removing the Provides from linux-libc-dev?
I am open to doing so.
[...]
I raised this at today's team meeting and it was agreed to do this; see
<https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1198>.
Thank you.
I note that these provides (while causing problems) also solved one
problem that now reappears. linux-libc-dev is marked `Multi-Arch:
foreign`, but this technically is a lie. It does not provide
linux-libc-dev for all architectures - not even for all linux-any
architectures and never will.
[...]
It is trivial for us to add support for additional architectures once
they are minimally supported in upstream Linux (we may also require
that dpkg recognises their triplet; I'm not sure). There is no
requirement that we define a kernel configuration for the architecture
at the same time, or ever (see x32).
Can we assume that new Debian Linux ports will be able to satisfy that
or would that be a problem sometimes?
CCing Adrian, he recently wanted to provide cross toolchains for
sparc-linux-gnu and ia64-linux-gnu, which the kernel doesn't provide
anymore. So a design which allows these toolchains would be helpful.
