Linux: build a 32-bit Debian package too.

Linux: build a 32-bit Debian package too.

[Tristan Schmelcher, 2009-08-19 20:52:56]

On 2009/08/19 20:51:32, tschmelcher wrote:
> 

I've created this new issue because the previous one is hosed. This snapshot has
the libglew1.5 and nvidia-cg-toolkit dependency solution that we talked about in
the previous issue.

[piman, 2009-08-19 21:27:07]

One thing to clarify, otherwise lgtm.

http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7
File installer/linux/debian_i386/rules (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7#newcode12
Line 12: # be resolved with the 64-bit packages). So, we suppress errors for
this case.
Could we list them in the 32-bit control file, but not the 64-bit one ?

[Tristan Schmelcher, 2009-08-19 21:35:07]

http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7
File installer/linux/debian_i386/rules (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7#newcode12
Line 12: # be resolved with the 64-bit packages). So, we suppress errors for
this case.
On 2009/08/19 21:27:07, piman wrote:
> Could we list them in the 32-bit control file, but not the 64-bit one ?

No, even if listed only in the 32-bit control file we'll still have the same
problem. The build rules check build dependencies even when cross-building, so
it would install the 64-bit packages for the 32-bit build, and if we don't have
this here then it won't find the libs because the 32-bit ones won't be
installed.

Also, ignoring the errors here isn't really a big issue, because ironically the
64-bit package's build process will check all of the libs even when the build
platform is 32-bit. This is because the 64-bit package ships with these libs, so
shlibdeps will find them by virtue of that and it will do all of its checks.

[piman, 2009-08-19 21:46:41]

On 2009/08/19 21:35:07, Tristan Schmelcher wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7
> File installer/linux/debian_i386/rules (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7#newcode12
> Line 12: # be resolved with the 64-bit packages). So, we suppress errors for
> this case.
> On 2009/08/19 21:27:07, piman wrote:
> > Could we list them in the 32-bit control file, but not the 64-bit one ?
> 
> No, even if listed only in the 32-bit control file we'll still have the same
> problem. The build rules check build dependencies even when cross-building, so
> it would install the 64-bit packages for the 32-bit build, and if we don't
have
> this here then it won't find the libs because the 32-bit ones won't be
> installed.
> 
> Also, ignoring the errors here isn't really a big issue, because ironically
the
> 64-bit package's build process will check all of the libs even when the build
> platform is 32-bit. This is because the 64-bit package ships with these libs,
so
> shlibdeps will find them by virtue of that and it will do all of its checks.

Ok, lgtm then, you know more than me about it.

[Tristan Schmelcher, 2009-08-19 21:52:13]

On 2009/08/19 21:46:41, piman wrote:
> On 2009/08/19 21:35:07, Tristan Schmelcher wrote:
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7
> > File installer/linux/debian_i386/rules (right):
> > 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/174080/diff/1/7#newcode12
> > Line 12: # be resolved with the 64-bit packages). So, we suppress errors for
> > this case.
> > On 2009/08/19 21:27:07, piman wrote:
> > > Could we list them in the 32-bit control file, but not the 64-bit one ?
> > 
> > No, even if listed only in the 32-bit control file we'll still have the same
> > problem. The build rules check build dependencies even when cross-building,
so
> > it would install the 64-bit packages for the 32-bit build, and if we don't
> have
> > this here then it won't find the libs because the 32-bit ones won't be
> > installed.
> > 
> > Also, ignoring the errors here isn't really a big issue, because ironically
> the
> > 64-bit package's build process will check all of the libs even when the
build
> > platform is 32-bit. This is because the 64-bit package ships with these
libs,
> so
> > shlibdeps will find them by virtue of that and it will do all of its checks.
> 
> Ok, lgtm then, you know more than me about it.

FYI, this CL is now submitted, but the issue didn't close (presumably due to the
same account/Rietveld brokenness we've been seeing lately).