Pierre Langlois writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Hi Andreas, sorry I missed your reply! > > Andreas Enge writes: > >> Hello Pierre, >> >> we also have gdb@12 in core-updates; does this also not build? Right now >> none of the two have been built on aarch64 on CI, so I lack an overview. > > Yup, gdb@12 builds just fine for me! > >> >> On x86_64, both build; @12 has 101 dependents, @11 7563! >> This cannot be accomodated on core-updates any more, I am afraid. >> >> We will need to build it out afterwards. And probably the best course >> of action would be to move the dependents to gdb@12; or drop the >> dependency? Why do so many packages depend on a debugger? > > Yeah gdb is used as a dependency for testing rust, I'm not sure if it > has to be 11, it can probably work with 12 although I haven't tried. > > I think the main reason we still have gdb 11 is to make sure we don't > rebuild the rust world. I'm afraid if we don't do update it know, we'll > have to do it quite soon, can the rust world be rebuilt on a staging > branch soon after the core-updates merge? I'm concerned that these days > a lot relies on rust (via librsvg IIRC), so not having it available > might be an issue, even for simple systems :-/. > > All that being said, it might be possible to add a separate gdb@11.2 > package, and only use it for rust on non-x86, in a way that doesn't > cause a rebuild, could that work? To illustrate what I mean, here's a WIP patch (it needs comments), AFAICT, this would only be a rebuild on non-x86: