* Helmut Grohne <[email protected]> [240806 09:33]: > thanks for fixing my previous stage1 bug so promptly. I have another > one. > > I tried cross builing util-linux stage1 for alpha and this is what I > got: > > | ... > | checking for crypt.h... yes > | configure: WARNING: crypt() is not available > | ... > | configure: WARNING: raw.h header file not found; not building raw > | configure: error: newgrp selected, but required crypt function not available > | tail -v -n \+0 config.log > | ==> config.log <== > | ... > > I note that the libcrypt-dev dependency of util-linux is annotated > <!stage1> and hence it is built without. Thus crypt really is not > available there. I'm not sure why this failure is > architecture-dependent (and I haven't seen it on e.g. m68k).
This might be a new problem introduced in -4. Earlier versions did not enable newgrp. > Generally > though, it seems like we should not both annotate libcrypt-dev with > <!stage1> and pass --enable-newgrp. I can tell that libxcrypt has very > minimal dependencies and is one of the first things we build. Having > util-linux stage1 require libcrypt-dev is not a problem for the > bootstrapping use case. Can I defer the decision of whether to drop the > stage profile from the dependency or conditionalize the configure flag? Sure. If libcrypt-dev is not a problem, I would just remove the <!stage1> annotation from it. > I am also happy to perform test bootstraps for your preferred choice. My thinking is that alpha might not be in the best state currently, but maybe this is irrelevant for bootstrap tests (or my impression of the current state is wrong). I've pushed the change to git, maybe you can give it a try? Chris
