Hello Stefano, Matthias, Andreas, and other committee members, I apologise for taking so long to respond to this issue. I missed the beginning of it as I did not have much time for Debian in February and March this year. I've been aware of it in recent months it but until today I had not gone back and read through the full conversation.
My answers below are mine alone. I have not discussed this with other team members and do not speak for them. On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hello kernel maintainers, > > While potential solutions to this bug are being discussed, would you > please consider removing the Provides from linux-libc-dev? I am open to doing so. > They can be re-instated again later, in combination with the requested > symlinks, or the binary package can be transitioned to > cross-toolchain-base, or some other solution found. I would hope that we > can figure out the future of this package, without leaving > cross-building broken. > > Last month, Sean asked you: > > > In [1], Bastian proposes that Matthias <doko> take over the > > linux-libc-dev binary package, building it from one of the crossbuilding > > source packages he maintains. Different people have been reading > > Bastian's e-mail differently as to whether it was a serious proposal for > > how to resolve the dispute, or just a rhetorical device Bastian was > > using to make a point. > > > > In any case, doko is among those who took the offer seriously. > > > > In two messages written today, Bastian appears to say both that he > > is okay with resolving the dispute that way, and also that he is not. > > > > I am writing seeking some clarity. What is the team consensus on this? > > Is this something you are happy to do, would consider doing, or is it > > off the table? That would help us see where we are. Since the Linux UAPI headers originate with Linux upstream, I think it makes most sense for the linux source package to remain the primary source for them in Debian. If I understand correctly, no-one has claimed that linux-libc-dev is causing problems other than through the disputed Provides field. I also don't see any convincing reason why linux-libc-dev and linux- libc-dev-*-cross cannot continue to be built by different source packages. I recognise that there is some duplication that could be avoided by building them together and having the -cross packages contain only symlinks, but in my experience of cross-building for embedded systems an extra few megabytes on the build system is in the noise. Kind regards, Ben. -- Ben Hutchings - Debian developer, member of kernel, installer and LTS teams
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
