Am 07.07.2014 22:55, schrieb Sergio Durigan Junior: >> Which architectures don't need it? Any architecture that support glibc >> and gdb for example benefits from having sdt markers available. > > Mark is right. > > It seems it is never enough to repeat this, but <sys/sdt.h> should not > be related to SystemTap. GDB makes a strong use of this header file, > and as a matter of fact, GDB even implemented the support for userspace > SDT probes on ARM *before* SystemTap did. And I did not have to change > anything on <sys/sdt.h>. > > By reading the backlog of this bug, I see that the main problem seems to > be the use of "arch:all" for this package (I am not considering the > initial "bug" that was not a bug after all). I am not a Debian > maintainer, so I will not try to convince people (or doko, in this case) > of the contrary. However, making <sys/sdt.h> available only on the > architectures supported by SystemTap is bad for GDB, and I can provide a > list of reasons if you want. > > My request, then, is that you make this package available to the > architectures where GDB is available. > on > I hope you find this reasonable.
thanks, talking with mjw I think this is reasonable. however for debian multiarch cross builds this header is seen on any cross build, even if it shouldn't. I think the correct solution will be to keep system-tap-sdt-dev architecture dependant and to ship the sdt.h headers on any arch. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
