On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:03:48PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 19:19:25 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > > Now, I'm not sure how to proceed here. I see that gcc-4.4 on armel is still > > the > > same (4.4.3-1) as when the build was attempted, so just re-attempting the > > build > > will not help… Any suggestions are welcome. > > > > If, one way or another, this cannot be fixed, should we remove armel from > > the > > list of supported arches for this package? > > > That wouldn't be too nice for your reverse dependencies... I came > across this while looking at what was preventing compiz from going to > testing.
Agreed, was just wondering what would need to happen if armel remains broken. > Did this get reported to the gcc people, and/or arm porter list? Did > anyone try to get a minimal test-case? No, and no. At the time I first saw this, I didn't have any access to ARM machines, and then I forgot about it. I guess I could now try to use the Debian ARM machines that are open to developers to try and find a good test-case. Thanks (again) for reminding me about this, will start looking into replicating/debugging it. I'll contact debian-arm right away. iustin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
