binary:lib32gphobos-10-dev-ppc64-cross is NEW.
binary:lib32gphobos1-ppc64-cross is NEW.
binary:lib64gphobos-10-dev-powerpc-cross is NEW.
binary:lib64gphobos1-powerpc-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos-10-dev-hppa-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos-10-dev-powerpc-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos-10-dev-ppc
gcc-10-cross-ports_7_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-10-cross-ports_7.dsc
gcc-10-cross-ports_7.tar.xz
cpp-10-alpha-linux-gnu_10.1.0-2cross1_amd64.deb
cpp-10-hppa-linux-gnu_10.1.0-2cross1_amd64.deb
cpp-10-m68k-linux-gnu_10.1.0-2cross1_amd64.deb
binary:libgphobos-10-dev-ppc64el-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos1-ppc64el-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos1-ppc64el-cross is NEW.
binary:libgphobos-10-dev-ppc64el-cross is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was oth
Matthias Klose, le lun. 18 mai 2020 16:43:06 +0200, a ecrit:
> the kfreebsd bits are configured explicitly as well.
You mean CONFARGS += --with-arch-32=i686 is not only for the
32bit-target-built-in-64bit-host? Then ok, and sorry for the noise.
Samuel
On 5/18/20 4:02 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I see that you have added --with-arch=i686 explicitly in rules2,
> but the thing is: it is *already* what gets enabled by default
> without specifying anything, just like it happens on linux-i386 and
> kfreebsd-i386.
>
> Keeping that special case will y
I see that you have added --with-arch=i686 explicitly in rules2,
but the thing is: it is *already* what gets enabled by default
without specifying anything, just like it happens on linux-i386 and
kfreebsd-i386.
Keeping that special case will yet once more leave a corner case that'll
bite us sooner
Matthias Klose, le lun. 18 mai 2020 15:49:40 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 5/18/20 3:28 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Matthias Klose, le lun. 18 mai 2020 15:25:41 +0200, a ecrit:
> >> On 5/18/20 2:59 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >>> It seems hurd-i386 was left with building with --with-arch=i586, while
> >
On 5/18/20 3:28 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Matthias Klose, le lun. 18 mai 2020 15:25:41 +0200, a ecrit:
>> On 5/18/20 2:59 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> It seems hurd-i386 was left with building with --with-arch=i586, while
>>> there is no reason any more to do so. I checked building glibc, hurd
Matthias Klose, le lun. 18 mai 2020 15:25:41 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 5/18/20 2:59 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > It seems hurd-i386 was left with building with --with-arch=i586, while
> > there is no reason any more to do so. I checked building glibc, hurd,
> > gnumach, without any issue.
>
> is it r
On 5/18/20 2:59 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Package: gcc-9
> Version: 9.3.0-12
> Severity: important
> Tags: patch
>
> Hello,
>
> It seems hurd-i386 was left with building with --with-arch=i586, while
> there is no reason any more to do so. I checked building glibc, hurd,
> gnumach, without any
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 960930 gcc-snapshot: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386
Bug #960930 [gcc-snapshot] gcc-9: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386.
Changed Bug title to 'gcc-snapshot: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386'
from 'gcc-9: Do not
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 960929 gcc-10: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386
Bug #960929 [gcc-10] gcc-9: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386.
Changed Bug title to 'gcc-10: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386' from
'gcc-9: Do not pass --with-arch=
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 960928 -1
Bug #960928 [gcc-9] gcc-9: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386.
Bug 960928 cloned as bug 960929
> reassign -1 gcc-10
Bug #960929 [gcc-9] gcc-9: Do not pass --with-arch=i586 on hurd-i386.
Bug reassigned from package 'gcc-9' to
Package: gcc-9
Version: 9.3.0-12
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hello,
It seems hurd-i386 was left with building with --with-arch=i586, while
there is no reason any more to do so. I checked building glibc, hurd,
gnumach, without any issue.
This needs to be applied on gcc-10 and snapshot as well
On 5/18/20 11:36 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
> Control: found -1 10-20200425-1
> Control: retitle -1 gcc-10: intermittently FTBFS with build-indep:
> /<>/build/./gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 11:08:36 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 important
Bug #960913 [src:gcc-10] gcc-10: FTBFS with build-indep (Architecture: all
only): /<>/build/./gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory
Severity set to 'important' from 'serious'
> found -1 10-20200425-1
Bug #960913 [src:gcc-10] gcc-10: FTBFS with bu
Control: severity -1 important
Control: found -1 10-20200425-1
Control: retitle -1 gcc-10: intermittently FTBFS with build-indep:
/<>/build/./gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 11:08:36 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I don't think this is an issue in the package.
>
> http
On 5/18/20 9:59 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Source: gcc-10
> Version: 10.1.0-2
> Severity: serious
> Tags: ftbfs
> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
>
> I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but in gcc-10_10.1.0-2
> building the Architecture: all
Source: gcc-10
Version: 10.1.0-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but in gcc-10_10.1.0-2
building the Architecture: all packages on the buildds, the stage2
build seems to have fa
19 matches
Mail list logo
