> I mean: did you test ffproxy compiled with your patch ?
Yes, I launched it, issued a couple of requests and got
the expected behavior. However, I didn't go any further
than that.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsu
> I think it might also have something to do with eglibc. Karmic has
> 2.10.1-0ubuntu12 and I think sid has 2.9-26. The log for the build
> failure which had me working on this initially is available at [1].
ok, that makes sense (error in stdio.h).
> Yes, I've tested the patch in an ubuntu karm
- "Emmanuel Bouthenot" a écrit :
> I've check and i didn't find any differences between both. Maybe the
> differences are related to gcc invokation ?
>
I think it might also have something to do with eglibc. Karmic has
2.10.1-0ubuntu12 and I think sid has 2.9-26. The log for the build
fail
> Are the changes between gcc 4.4 in Ubuntu and gcc 4.4 in Debian
> documented somewhere ?
I've check and i didn't find any differences between both. Maybe the
differences are related to gcc invokation ?
> Anyway, i will try to add your patch quickly even if i would have
> liked to be able to rep
severity 547402 normal
tags 547402 + unreproducible
thanks
> During a rebuild of the package in Ubuntu, ffproxy FTBFS using gcc 4.4 [1].
> A patch that fixes the issue can be found at [2].
I failed to reproduce that build failure on Debian Sid using gcc 4.4
on amd64. It seems that Ubuntu uses
Package: ffproxy
Version: 1.6-5
During a rebuild of the package in Ubuntu, ffproxy FTBFS using gcc 4.4 [1].
A patch that fixes the issue can be found at [2].
Cheers,
--
Nicolas
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ffproxy/+bug/432366
[2] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32008898/ffproxy_1
6 matches
Mail list logo
