Your message dated Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:28:21 -0400
with message-id <87vbs8ad3e....@naesten.mooo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#748694: sys/sdt.h is architecture specific, and
causing issues on unsupported architectures
has caused the Debian Bug report #748694,
regarding sys/sdt.h is architecture specific, and causing issues on unsupported
architectures
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
748694: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748694
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: systemtap
Version: 2.3-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid jessie
The sys/sdt.h header file is shipped in an architecture independent package, and
installed into /usr/include where it is found on the include path for every
architecture. Seen that the mere inclusion of this header causes build failures
on some architectures. Reported in
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR61231
and before in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01122.html
This just seems to be the visible fall-out, what about issues on architectures
not supported by systemtap?
In bug #423934 you mention that systemtap should be only available on
architectures where it is supported. The systemtap-sdt-dev package violates
this assurance. So the correct solution for this seems to be an architecture
dependent systemtap-sdt-dev package shipping the header file in
/usr/include/<multiarch>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.3-2
Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindf...@iki.fi> writes:
> is there something simpler than gcc that FTBFS? I'd like to look into
> the issue but gcc is quite heavy to build, especially on a porterbox.
Well, judging from <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR61231> there was actually no
bug in <sys/sdt.h> in the first place; there was actually just a buggy
commit to GCC.
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
--- End Message ---
