tags 463300 - pending
thanks
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:20:13PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
> if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++.
>
> Please keep this report open until the package uses the default
> compiler version for the package build.
OK then. Now we have gcc 4.3 being the default everywhere except
i386/amd64, it is not clear whether this will stay as such for the
release or not. The problem with gtkmathview is that it segfault at
runtime if built with gcc = 4.2, and I won't be happy to have it
segfault, even if only on i386/amd64 :-)
So I would go for a build-dep on gcc-4.3 (which will be useless
everywhere except on i386/amd64).
> The severity of this report is likely to be raised before the release.
I would like to be reassured on this point. With the above solution, the
problem of non-standard gcc will remain, but according to my intuition
and according to an advice I've asked for on #debian-release [1] this is
not a problem when depending on newer gcc versions. Note that the
current version of the package in the archive is violating this rule,
build-depending on an *older* gcc version, while the proposed solution
will "fix" this build-depending on a *newer* one.
Would this be OK? Of course I don't want to close this bug report until
gtkmathview will in fact works properly with the default gcc, but I do
want to release gtkmathview (and hence want to avoid being RC bugged by
this). I would also like to lower this bug priority to normal,
consequently.
Let me know.
Cheers.
[1] #debian-release logs from today:
(15:39:40) zack: I've a package which builds properly with all gccs,
but segfault at runtime if built with gcc 4.2. I was going to wait
for gcc to default to 4.3 everywhere, but I'm not sure if this is
gonna happen on i386/amd64. Considering this, can I upload the
package with a build-dep on gcc-4.3 for the lenny release?
(15:40:10) zack: (I'm asking because I was bugged in the past for not
using a standard gcc: #463300)
(15:41:25) dato: zack: well, the painful bit is when you build-dep on
*older* gccs than the default, not the opposite
(15:41:55) zack: that was my intuition as well, but the comment in
#463300 was (intentionally?) way more general
(15:42:11) zack: anyhow, can I consider your reply a "yes, go ahead"?
(15:42:19) dato: so I think there's no problem with build-depping on
gcc-4.3; you'll have to drop the build-dep at some point, that's all
(15:42:34) zack: ok, mind if I quote you in the buglog?
(15:44:27) dato: well, I just said what I think it's reasonable, but
sure
(15:44:35) zack: dato: ack, tnx
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
