At Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:38:17 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > Before applying a patch, I would like to hear why this bug affects > > only sparc? > > No, it's not sparc-specific. What I meant is that, from a release > management point of view, it is preventing xorg-x11 from being a > candidate for testing, since (for different reasons over time, one of > them being the mentioned #318979) there has not been a successful > build of the package in SPARC yet. And this is blocking other packages > from doing their C++ ABI transition as well. > > So, the bug is serious because it breaks compilation of other > packages, and the release team would wish (I believe) a quick solution > for the reason explained in the previous paragraph. > > > Looking at the following build log, I found linux-kernel-headers > > 2.6.12.0-1 was used. This means the bug #318979 is not related with > > xorg-x11 FTBFS, I think. If so, bumping up the severity of this bug > > is clearly wrong. > > Again, sorry if my words were not clear enough. I was not talking > about an already existing FTBFS on sparc, but about a _future_ one, > when xorg-x11 would be retried in that arch with l-k-h 2.6.13+0rc3-1 > (as you say, last time it was tried with still 2.6.12.0-1). But Eugene > Konev has stated that such retry _would_ fail, and I've asked the > X.org packagers for confirmation.
I still don't understand the actual point of your suggestion. I just want to know why #318979 causes FTBFS of xorg-x11. Even if a bug prevents xorg-x11 from the testing, whether lkh 2.6.13+0rc3-1 cannot compile the future xorg-x11 on sparc or not, we should clear the problem and what the actual bug is. Could you explain me the problem of xorg-x11? Regards, -- gotom
