Hello,

> On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:52, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Michael,
> 
> thanks for your reply.
> 
> As far as I understood the issue, make.sh checking for architecture names in paths
> is fine, but in filenames (such as x86_64.h), it is not. A whitelist approach would
> not be necessary in this case, it only needs to ignore the file name of a given path
> while checking for architecture names.

In this case it is, but generally it isn’t.

The check was built for Perl and Python modules that carry the architecture name in their paths. For Perl that is usually a directory and Python has it in the filename.

The idea is to catch any build problems if someone builds it on one architecture and doesn’t notice.

I never notice.

I do not think there is a technical solution to this.

-Michael

> Does this make sense? Or did I misunderstood you?
> 
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller
> 
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> What is the bug for? The check does exactly what it is supposed to do.
>> 
>> We either need to get rid of it entirely because it has false positives or we need to have a whitelist.
>> 
>> Is that a solution that you had in mind?
>> 
>> -Michael
>> 
>>> On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:39, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> P.S.: Bug #12743 (https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12743) has been raised for this.
>>> 
>>> Should anybody have spare time to work on it, please feel free to do so. :-)
>>> 
>>>> Hello Adolf,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for your reply.
>>>> 
>>>>> How should we deal with the situation where a source file filename happens to use an architecture name the same as an IPFire name.
>>>> 
>>>> I also think this is a false positive, though it surprises me we never came across this
>>>> scenario all the years before. Either way, make.sh (or whatever's doing this check) needs
>>>> to be updated to ignore such cases.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll file a bug for this later...
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, and best regards,
>>>> Peter Müller
>>>> 
>>