Hi, Jo Shields wrote: > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 17:34 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> Hiroyuki, >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Jo Shields <direct...@apebox.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 17:08 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> Package: mono >>>> Tags: patch >>>> >>>> Please fix the ppc64 compilation error: >>>> >>>> http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mono&arch=ppc64&ver=3.0.6%2Bdfsg2-9&stamp=1384751932 >>> >>> Is this sufficient to fix later issues with building on ppc64? As per >>> http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mono&arch=ppc64&ver=3.2.3%2Bdfsg-3&stamp=1385928050 >>> >>> I'm not too interested in making ports-only fixes to the package in sid, >>> as my efforts are focused on the newer version in experimental right now >>> - I'd only want to pull this fix in if it *really* fixes the build, not >>> just makes it fail a little later. >> >> >> Could you please try the above patch and let us know if this is >> sufficient to build mono on ppc64 ?
OK. I'll try it later. > If a PPC64 porterbox were available (or a ppc64 chroot on partch, given > it's already got a 64-bit kernel), then it would be much easier to test > and fix issues in Mono and similar porting-required packages, as it > would remove the upload-wait-buildlog-upload-wait-buildlog cycle from > testing. This is my general objection to adding new debian-ports > architectures to the Mono packages - I want to be able to test things > and I can't. I made a ppc64 environment on /srv/chroot/sid of 'piston' in May 2012, but 'piston' is restricted machine and I have no permission now, so, I don't know that it is still left as it was, now. Best regards, -- Hiroyuki Yamamoto A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
