Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:54:40 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#284905: severity 284905 serious
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)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 2004 12:23:35 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 09 04:23:34 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from d007053.adsl.hansenet.de (localhost.localdomain) [80.171.7.53] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1CcNKY-0006Fo-00; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 04:23:34 -0800
Received: from aj by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.34)
        id 1CcNOb-0006xz-U9; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:27:45 +0100
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libgcrypt11: FTBFS (amd64/gcc-4.0): invalid storage class for function 
'serpent_test'
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:27:45 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: libgcrypt11
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

When building 'libgcrypt11' on amd64 with gcc-4.0,
I get the following error:

 cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../src -g -Wall -O2 -Wall -MT serpent.lo -MD 
-MP -MF .deps/serpent.Tpo -c serpent.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/serpent.o
serpent.c: In function 'serpent_setkey':
serpent.c:690: error: invalid storage class for function 'serpent_test'
make[3]: *** [serpent.lo] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory 
`/libgcrypt11-1.2.0/build-tree/libgcrypt-1.2.0/cipher'

With the attached patch 'libgcrypt11' can be compiled
on amd64 using gcc-4.0.

Regards
Andreas Jochens

diff -urN ../tmp-orig/libgcrypt11-1.2.0/debian/patches/00list 
./debian/patches/00list
--- ../tmp-orig/libgcrypt11-1.2.0/debian/patches/00list 2004-12-09 
12:45:59.022232016 +0100
+++ ./debian/patches/00list     2004-12-09 12:45:49.832629048 +0100
@@ -1 +1,3 @@
 build.patch
+gcc4.patch
+
diff -urN ../tmp-orig/libgcrypt11-1.2.0/debian/patches/gcc4.patch 
./debian/patches/gcc4.patch
--- ../tmp-orig/libgcrypt11-1.2.0/debian/patches/gcc4.patch     1970-01-01 
01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ ./debian/patches/gcc4.patch 2004-12-09 12:45:33.740075488 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+diff -urN tmp/cipher/serpent.c libgcrypt-1.2.0/cipher/serpent.c
+--- tmp/cipher/serpent.c       2004-12-09 12:39:33.895780000 +0100
++++ libgcrypt-1.2.0/cipher/serpent.c   2004-12-09 12:45:13.630132664 +0100
+@@ -674,6 +674,8 @@
+   _gcry_burn_stack (272 * sizeof (u32_t));
+ }
+ 
++static const char *serpent_test (void);
++
+ /* Initialize CTX with the key KEY of KEY_LENGTH bytes.  */
+ static gcry_err_code_t
+ serpent_setkey (void *ctx,
+@@ -687,7 +689,6 @@
+   if (! serpent_init_done)
+     {
+       /* Execute a self-test the first time, Serpent is used.  */
+-      static const char *serpent_test (void);
+       
+       serpent_test_ret = serpent_test ();
+       if (serpent_test_ret)

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 284905-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jul 2005 03:55:35 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 13 20:55:35 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from run.smurf.noris.de (server.smurf.noris.de) [192.109.102.41] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1Dsuow-0002rI-00; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:55:35 -0700
Received: from kiste.smurf.noris.de ([192.109.102.35] ident=mail)
        by server.smurf.noris.de with smtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1Dsuo4-0007wZ-Vi; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:55:00 +0200
Received: (nullmailer pid 6227 invoked by uid 501);
        Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54:40 -0000
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:54:40 +0200
To: Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#284905: severity 284905 serious
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Smurf-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Smurf-Whitelist: +relay_from_hosts
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-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 


--FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

fixed by upgrading to new Upstream.

Matt Kraai:
> GCC 4.0 is now the default compiler, so this bug prevents this package
> from building on all architectures.  Therefore, I'm setting its
> severity to serious.

--=20
Matthias Urlichs   |   {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
 - -
A penny saved is ridiculous.

--FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC1eIA8+hUANcKr/kRAhpIAJ9Kdn4kyaeoyTl7aCguGE3XAaV2EACdFOKO
mXXM9eD93pwBY5va2HDBoM8=
=5H9Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8--


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to