On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not "some random package" it's the C library, and it is needed to > compile 32-bit C programs.
It's not libc6. It's not even libc6-dev. It's libc6-dev-i386. Debian Popularity Contest says that 84315 out of 147631 are AMD64; 99980 systems out of 147631 have libc6-dev installed; and yet only 7712 (presumably all AMD64) have libc6-dev-i386 installed (+740 with the obsolete ia32-libs-dev). Any way I cut it, most people who have the C library development package on AMD64 installed don't have the libc6-dev-i386 package installed. > If the > latter, did you try spelling it correctly, --disable-multilib > (singular)? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was misspelling it. Again, failing with some random bug in the middle of compilation is not generally a sign of that type of error. > In any case, the point stands: someone needs to do the work, insisting > on it being done doesn't do it. That's not the point. I can send you a patch pretty quickly that changes the default on AMD64 from --enable-multilib to --disable-multilib. I've been told it's impossible to fix it any other way, and saying "It is clearly a computable problem" is quite a distance from saying "oh, we can fix this". If you can fix this without changing the default, that's great, but nobody has even said that's a solvable problem, except in the theoretical sense. I don't care how it's fixed, but if you want me to do it, I'm going to make the simple configuration fix instead of the possibly intractable library detect patch. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
