On Monday, May 27, 2013 09:46:30 AM Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > tags 709900 unreproducible > severity 709900 minor > thanks > > * Daniel Schepler <dschep...@gmail.com> [2013-05-26 08:16 -0700]: > > Source: alsa-lib > > Version: 1.0.27-4 > > Severity: important > > > > >From my pbuilder build log, set up with binutils 2.23.2-2 installed: > I can't find that version in amy Debian Repo? So it is not > reproducible an an Debian environment. 2.23.2-2ubuntu1 is > available in Ubuntu thus not relevant for us. > > # apt-cache policy binutils > > binutils: > Installed: 2.22-8 > Candidate: 2.22-8 > Version table: > 2.23.52.20130522-1 0 > 100 ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ experimental/main amd64 Packages > *** 2.22-8 0 > 500 ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages > 990 ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > All buildlogs [0] are ok as well as a testbuild in an unstable > chroot, though > > [0] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=alsa-lib > > Elimar
OK, so binutils has been upgraded past 2.23.2-2 in experimental in the meantime. But testing with binutils 2.23.52.20130522-1, I can reproduce the same error. And according to Matthias Klose, this is an intentional behavior change in binutils upstream, and it will eventually be uploaded to unstable once gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8 updates have filtered through into testing. Which is why I upgraded to this binutils for build testing (along with gcc-defaults -> gcc-4.8, make 3.82-1 from experimental, texinfo 5.1 from unstable which is stricter about error checking than past versions, etc.). -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org