Btw I did the same test again. Compiled emacs23
23.2+1-5.1 with binutils 2.20.1-15 and gcc 4.4.5-6
and the resulting binary doesn't exhibit this bug.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listma
2010/11/21 Christoph Egger :
> May I ask how you do that build? Which kernel do you use? It's failing
> for me with
I used Linux-libre 2.6.35.7-libre2-lemote from
http://linux-libre.fsfla.org/pub/linux-libre/lemote/gnewsense
With Linux 2.6.36-trunk-loongson-2f from experimental, I get the error
y
Robert Millan writes:
> 2010/11/20 Rob Browning :
>> I'm not sure I understand where we stand with respect to this bug. Do
>> we think the newer binutils fixes the problem or not?
>
> TBH, I'm not sure anymore. I just know rebuilding it on my (clean)
> squeeze system produced a working binary.
2010/11/20 Rob Browning :
> I'm not sure I understand where we stand with respect to this bug. Do
> we think the newer binutils fixes the problem or not?
TBH, I'm not sure anymore. I just know rebuilding it on my (clean)
squeeze system produced a working binary.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUB
Robert Millan writes:
> 2010/11/6 Sven Joachim :
>> Could you please test emacs23 23.2+1-5.1 and report whether the problem
>> is fixed in that version?
>
> It isn't.
I'm not sure I understand where we stand with respect to this bug. Do
we think the newer binutils fixes the problem or not?
Tha
2010/11/6 Sven Joachim :
> Could you please test emacs23 23.2+1-5.1 and report whether the problem
> is fixed in that version?
It isn't.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
On 2010-10-20 20:02 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2010/10/20, Sven Joachim :
>>> + binutils (>= 2.20.1-6),
>>
>> …how is this patch going to help, considering that emacs23 23.2+1-4 has
>> been built with binutils 2.20.1-13 according to the logs¹?
>
> I read the logs, but they don't prove this is t
2010/10/20, Sven Joachim :
>> + binutils (>= 2.20.1-6),
>
> …how is this patch going to help, considering that emacs23 23.2+1-4 has
> been built with binutils 2.20.1-13 according to the logs¹?
I read the logs, but they don't prove this is the same version,
so I disregarded that. Maybe an md5sum c
On 2010-10-20 12:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> I can confirm that rebuilding with current toolchain solves the problem.
Nice to hear, but…
> --- debian/control.in~2010-08-14 18:54:18.0 +0200
> +++ debian/control.in 2010-10-20 11:56:54.0 +0200
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> libg
forcemerge 566947 598234
found 598234 23.2+1-4
tags 598234 patch
thanks
Hi,
I can confirm that rebuilding with current toolchain solves the problem.
Rather than just a binNMU, I'd recommend this patch to ensure this
doesn't happen again.
--
Robert Millan
--- debian/control.in~ 2010-08-14 18:5
10 matches
Mail list logo
