Your message dated Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:26:22 +0100
with message-id <z9v__g1xhzojh...@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#1100544: glibc adds some conflicts letting
gcc-14-cross ftbfs
has caused the Debian Bug report #1100544,
regarding glibc adds some conflicts letting gcc-14-cross ftbfs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1100544: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100544
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: src:glibc
Version: 2.41-4
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
Affects: gcc-14-cross
sudo apt build-dep gcc-14-cross
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
Unsatisfied dependencies:
builddeps:gcc-14-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (>= 2.37) but
it is not installable
libc6-dev-i386-amd64-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (=
2.40-4cross1) but it is not installable
libc6-dev-x32-amd64-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (=
2.40-4cross1) but it is not installable
Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2025-03-15 07:01, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 libc6-dev-i386
> Control: affects -1 = src:gcc-14-cross
> Control: tags -1 + ftbfs
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 05:45:15AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > sudo apt build-dep gcc-14-cross
> >
> > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> >
> > Unsatisfied dependencies:
> > builddeps:gcc-14-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (>= 2.37) but it is
> > not installable
> > libc6-dev-i386-amd64-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (=
> > 2.40-4cross1) but it is not installable
> > libc6-dev-x32-amd64-cross : Depends: libc6-dev-amd64-cross (= 2.40-4cross1)
> > but it is not installable
> > Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
>
> Matthias and me discussed the matter on irc. The bug introducing the
> problem was #1092278 asking for libc6-dev-* to conflict with one
> another. Now the transformed libc6-dev-*-*-cross packages move e.g.
> /usr/lib32 to /usr/<triplet>/lib32 thereby resolving the underyling
> conflict in the transformed packages. Moreover, since the conflicts lack
> architecture qualifiers we get funky ones such as
> libc6-dev-amd64-amd64-cross that don't exist anywhere. Qualifying them
> is not a solution, because gcc-14-cross really wants both
> libc6-dev-x32-i386-cross and libc6-dev-x32-amd64-cross at the same time
> and while their package contents are coinstallable, the underlying glibc
> packages libc6-dev-x32:i386 and libc6-dev-x32:amd64 really are not
> coinstallable. It is the sysroot transformation that renders them
> coinstallable.
>
> Our discussion arrived at three ways to move forward from here and we
> did not reach any agreement here.
>
> 1. glibc should conditionally emit these Conflicts. When a particular
> environment variable is set by c-t-b, their emission is suppressed.
>
> 2. Someone (me?) develops a c-t-b patch that discards the conflicts in
> the repacking step as that also is the step that fixes
> coinstallability.
>
> 3. We revert those conflicts in trixie and retry with more time in
> forky.
> > Matthias prefers 1. I object to 1 on reproducibility grounds and
> Matthias prefers 1. I object to 1 on reproducibility grounds and
> favour 3 given the state of discussion.
At the end this has been fixed in cross-toolchain-base 74 and
cross-toolchain-base-ports 71. Reverting the change on the glibc side
will just cause them to FTBFS, so closing this bug.
Regards
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
--- End Message ---
