[2018-02-21 17:02] Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org>
> >!Important! This upload re-enables diet libc support {conditional, via
> >build profiles}. Input from developers, experienced with Debian
> >bootstrap is very, very welcome.
>
> Since this is causing troubles in Ubuntu (Matthias, please give your opinion
> here),
> because dietlibc is in main, and gives also troubles to maintain the list of
> dietlibc
> architectures where it is available, since it causes troubles using dietlibc
> (the build seems failing), I would prefer to actually implement it again once
> dietlibc folks
> makes the whole stuff *working*.
>
> [... description of problems in Ubuntu ...]
With all my respect, I am very relucant to solve problems of Ubuntu at
expense of Debian output. What exactly is wrong, Debian-wise, in package
we are discussing, apart the need to specify long list of architectures,
so I could fix it?
> I would prefer a patch from dietlibc folks, with an use case of *why*
> they need this static library, rather than building/including
> something that caused 4 bugs in Debian, a lot of pain in Ubuntu (and
> probably was even broken).
>
> What is your opinion? I would like to understand why we need this, and
> if this had even worked.
You ask good question.
Short answer:
because you need it to link program, using gdbm, with diet libc,
resulting small static executable.
Full answer:
because I believe Debian should provide not only libraries for
build-dependencies of something in /bin, but also libraries for
developers to develop with.
I did some search, and seems this is already happening. We have a lot
of leaf libraries (mostly perl and java), for example:
- libxmlenc-java
- libwx-scintilla-perl
Or maybe we just need Guix/Nix?
> The other stuff looks good to me :)
That is good news.
