cross-toolchain-base-devs team mailing list archive

[Matthias Klose <doko@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23.08.19 17:41, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We now have a version of linux (5.2.9-2) that builds on all release
> architectures and doesn't seem to cause build regressions for other
> packages.  I think that this should migrate to testing soon, as the
> version in testing is missing important security fixes.
> 
> I'm aware of autopkgtest regressions for two packages:
> 
> * cross-toolchain-base 36: This appears to be a bug in that version of
> the package.  cross-toolchain-base version 39 seems to be compatible
> with Linux 5.2 and would need to migrate at the same time.
> 
> * glibc 2.28-10: This is a minor regression in the kernel uAPI headers,
> which could *possibly* lead to build failures if programs define
> conflicting macros.  (I fixed the larger regression which did cause
> build failures.)  glibc 2.29 as packaged in experimental will stop
> using these uAPI headers.
> 
> The excuses file mentions "new bug" #934483, but that was a bug in
> virtualbox-guest-dkms which has now been fixed.  virtualbox is not in
> testing.
> 
> So these packages should migrate to testing together:
> 
> cross-toolchain-base 39
> linux 5.2.9-2
> linux-latest 106
> linux-signed-amd64 5.2.9+2
> linux-signed-arm64 5.2.9+2
> linux-signed-i386 5.2.9+2
> 
> cross-toolchain-base seems to be dependent on these packages, which
> also inter-depend on each other, so that they'll also need to migrate
> at the same time:
> 
> binutils
> gcc-8
> gcc-9-cross-ports
> gcc-defaults-ports

due to the removal of the mips packages, binutils, cross-toolchain-base,
gcc-8-cross, gcc-9-cross and gcc-defaults need to migrate together.  The
combination of linux-libc-dev (<< 5.2) and linux-libc-dev (>= 5.2) leads to
build failures for some cross compilers, so all the -ports packages should
migrate as well.

Blockers:
https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/g/gcc-9-cross.html why?

Matthias