On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:17:05PM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2011 17:42:29 gregor herrmann wrote:
> > I'm a bit skeptical that the build problem on armhf is really about
> > the missing libbsd-dev package, and that adding it, at least for all
> > architectures, is the way to go.
>
> Boss, I beg to differ.
>
> Looks like perl was compiled differently depending on the arch.
>
> If you look at the build logs of armhf [1] , powerpcspe[2] and amd64[3],
> you can see that util.h was found only on armhf
>
> I guess that perl's configure looked elsewhere on powerpcspe and amd64
> to find the required definitions.
>
> On armhf, libbds-dev was indeed installed before build. But I don't know why.
I believe this is a bug in perl that I happend to fix recently in
5.12.3-3/experimental after noticing a Ubuntu deviation:
* debian/config.debian: never use <libutil.h>, even if libbsd-dev is
installed. Inspired by a similar Ubuntu change.
The problem is that if perl is compiled with libbsd-dev installed,
the headers require <libutil.h> for all other packages too.
I'll fix it for the next sid upload too, but in the meanwhile, binNMUing
perl on armhf without libbsd-dev should fix the immediate problem.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
