Your message dated Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:32:59 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
has caused the Debian Bug report #338059,
regarding newlib_1.13.0-2(armeb/unstable): FTBFS: please add armeb to
debian/control
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 338059-forwarded) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Nov 2005 16:33:10 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 08 08:33:10 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.198]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EZWPG-0003FC-00; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:33:10 -0800
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i1so169958wra
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:33:00 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=F5d2OamRF2hpu5NY7+fqfugswDppL5E5rjmdQnSM/AUX/wiGm9BwMlpddAiOmnuhg8eHqiKKzapdo6TuSjYpF1UOvakNv3hLOwzMd3mgqdNN3+a+1RgQmYkgllkv+jPUsRufYxOPWmMZ2s/P0KSjuvwBgMZO4pWP6QEH2Jc+SJI=
Received: by 10.65.20.5 with SMTP id x5mr6805124qbi;
Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.253.17 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:32:59 -0700
From: Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#338059: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#338059:
newlib_1.13.0-2(armeb/unstable): FTBFS: please add armeb to debian/control)
Cc: Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
package newlib
tag 338059 +confirmed upstream
thanks
Hello Wouter,
I'll forward your request on to the newlib folks. My reply follows the
context quoting. Please follow up to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2005/11/7, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005, Shaun Jackman wrote...
> > i386 is the only Linux target supported by the upstream newlib. Many
> > other embedded targets are supported by newlib, but not *-linux, and
> > in particular not armeb-linux. This is not likely to change anytime
> > soon, though it would possible to write a port for other Linux targets
> > if someone wished to contribute the work.
>
> In that case, wouldn't it be better to make the build system bail out
> when it detects it's on an architecture it doesn't support? (rather than
> allowing to build everything and only at the very end finding out that
> hey, this architecture isn't actually supported).
>
> (Reopening as I think that'd be better, but this'll be the last time.)
The issue is that newlib is one component of the GNU toolchain build
system. Even though newlib fails to build on armeb-linux, other
components such as libiberty may succeed.
The technical reason aside, however, I agree with you that it would be
better behaved if the "newlib" tarball distribution failed to build if
newlib fails to configure.
Cheers,
Shaun
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
