Your message dated Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:29:06 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line ldbl128 transition for liborbit2 could be omitted
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: liborbit2-dev
Severity: serious
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: goal-ldbl128
Discussed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg01173.html
With glibc-2.5 and gcc-4.1.2 (and gcc-4.2), the 'long double'
data type did change from a 64bit representation to a 128bit
representation on alpha, powerpc, sparc, s390. To allow
partial upgrades of packages, we will need to rename all
packages holding libraries with the long double data type in
their API. Both libc and libstdc++ do not need to be renamed,
because they support both representations. We rename the library
packages on all architectures to avoid name mismatches between
architectures (you can avoid the renaming by supporting both
datatype representations in the library as done in glibc and
libstdc++, but unless a library is prepared for that, it does not
seem to be worth the effort).
It is suggested to rename a package libfoo1 to libfoo1ldbl;
please wait with the renaming if the package depends on
another library package which needs renaming.
This package has been indentified as one with header files in
/usr/include matching 'long *double'. Please close this bug report
if it is a false positive, or rename the package accordingly.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:56:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
> looking at why ORBit hadn’t been updated to the latest upstream version,
> I noticed there is an open RC bug about the ldbl128 transition. Given
> the number of rdeps (373), this is a huge beast to update.
> However, looking at the headers, I can see that in fact, it can probably
> be avoided. The basic long double type, which is used by all structures,
> is the following:
> typedef gdouble CORBA_long_double;
> This is a clear violation of the CORBA specification, but the result for
> us is that this transition should not be necessary.
> Is it OK to close this bug, or am I missing something?
Yes, this is ok. The problem is a small bug in the regexp used to find
offenders:
long *double
this of course matches "longdouble", where the intended regexp was really:
long \+double
I've confirmed that the latter pattern has no matches in
/usr/include/orbit-2.0, so closing the bug with this mail.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
