Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2025-06-07 10:38:12 [+0200], Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> The patch you took was the top-most in the fix series, you also need the >>> few that were applied before that one. That last one depends on the >>> previous changes. I took me a while to figure that out. >>> >>> I collected them and verified that the package builds on amd64 and >>> s390x. >> >> Interesting! Part of what is surprising to me is that the test >> failure is different (mailsplit instead of min-batch-size) - I'm also >> not seeing where in the proposed patches would affect this >> functionality, as opposed to improving the code style (though >> improving the code style is also of course nice :)). Do you have a >> link to the log from when you built on s390x? Was it running tests? > > I rebuilt the whole package so all tests were running > https://breakpoint.cc/log-uns-patched.txt Okay, that indeed leans toward my having made a mistake while backporting. Thanks, I'll take the whole series instead like you've suggested. >> The other thing that surprised me was that experimental, which >> includes all patches in "next", also continued to fail tests on 64-bit >> big endian architectures, though now that I check again in the >> experimental buildd logs that is yet another, different failure! >> From [1]: > > This is > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250606165718.hoic2...@breakpoint.cc Ah, very nice! Thanks much for this. New uploads coming later today. :) For the future: in general if you prepare a "git format-patch" format patch or merge request in Salsa against the packaging repo, that tends to be very welcome, since it makes it easier to use your work as-is. I'd also be happy if you'd like to join as a co-maintainer (and we can use the packaging repo as our shared space for working). Sincerely, Jonathan
