Package: boost1.88 Version: 1.88.0-1 Tags: patch
In <URL: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=boost1.88&arch=alpha&ver=1.88.0-1&stamp=1745311001&raw=0 > the build fail like this: "g++" -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0=. -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wno-unused-local-typedefs -fPIC -pthread -O3 -finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall -g -fvisibility=hidden -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_ASIO_NO_DEPRECATED -DBOOST_ATOMIC_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_ATOMIC_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_COBALT_USE_STD_PMR=1 -DBOOST_CONTEXT_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_CONTEXT_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_DATE_TIME_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_DISABLE_ASSERTS -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_PROCESS_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_PROCESS_SOURCE=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_NO_LIB=1 -DDATE_TIME_INLINE -DNDEBUG -I"." -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/asio/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/assert/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/atomic/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/concept_check/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/container_hash/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/context/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/core/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/describe/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/detail/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/filesystem/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/integer/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/iterator/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/move/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/mp11/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/mpl/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/optional/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/pool/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/predef/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/process/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/scope/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/smart_ptr/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/system/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/throw_exception/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/tokenizer/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/type_index/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/variant2/include" -I"/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/winapi/include" -c -o "bin.v2/libs/process/build/gcc-14/release/boost.process.fs-boost/debug-symbols-on/threading-multi/visibility-hidden/error.o" "/build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/process/src/error.cpp" /build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/process/src/error.cpp: In member function ‘virtual std::string boost::process::v2::error::detail::exit_code_category::message(int) const’: /build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/process/src/error.cpp:128:21: error: duplicate case value 128 | case SIGPWR: return "SIGPWR: Power failure (System V)"; | ^~~~ /build/reproducible-path/boost1.88-1.88.0/libs/process/src/error.cpp:104:21: note: previously used here 104 | case SIGINFO: return "SIGINFO: A synonym for SIGPWR"; | ^~~~ ...failed gcc.compile.c++ bin.v2/libs/process/build/gcc-14/release/boost.process.fs-boost/debug-symbols-on/threading-multi/visibility-hidden/error.o... I propose the following untested patch to solve it, structured like similar tests other places in the large switch block. --- libs/process/src/error.cpp 2025-04-21 21:14:05.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/error.cpp 2025-05-02 07:52:20.000000000 +0200 @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ # if defined(SIGILL) case SIGILL: return "SIGILL: Illegal Instruction"; # endif -# if defined(SIGINFO) +# if defined(SIGINFO) && !defined(SIGPWR) case SIGINFO: return "SIGINFO: A synonym for SIGPWR"; # endif # if defined(SIGINT) Or perhaps it is better to compare SIGINFO with SIGPWR and only include the SIGINFO case if they are different? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
