On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 00:13 -0300, Ricardo Salveti wrote: >> Including missing arm header references from the arm64 headers: >> asm/opcodes.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/opcodes.h> >> asm/xen/hypervisor.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h> >> asm/xen/page.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/page.h> >> asm/xen/page-coherent.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/page-coherent.h> >> asm/xen/hypercall.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h> >> asm/xen/interface.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/interface.h> > > Yuck. I don't really want to add a special case for this. > > I wonder whether it would make more sense to make linux-headers- > <abiname>-common arch-independent, which I kind of wanted to do anyway. > That would expand the installed size by about 35-60% depending on which > architecture we compare with. What do you think?
That was the other possible solution I had as well, but since it would increase the size quite considerably, I ended up just fixing the arm64 case. I would be +1 for the arch-independent package, as it would help avoiding similar issues in the future. If the user got disk space for the headers (which is used for development or dkms packages), I think it would be fine to make it a bit bigger. Cheers, -- Ricardo Salveti
