reopen 1024239 thanks Hi Adrian,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:16:28AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > sorry for the late reply. > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, after consulting with upstream this should be fixed in new upstream > > https://github.com/stef/equihash/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.3.tar.gz which has > > https://github.com/stef/equihash/commit/0806afadf99837519469449c55dc425763e8eef7 > > . I'll upload a new package soonishlish. > > a second baseline violation I missed in my original bug report is > -march=native, which FTBFS on some architectures and where it builds > the package would only run on hardware compatible with whatever buildd > did build the package (on amd64 this also means either on AMD or on > Intel hardware). > > Regarding the binary-any FTBFS, this can be reproduced in a chroot > with "dpkg-buildpackage -B". > > sbuild has a --no-arch-all option that might do the same (untested). > > python3-equihash is the binary-all package, what seems to fail is > debian/rules trying to build it in binary-any-only builds. Thanks for detailed explanation. I saw my latest upload FTBFS again, indeed. Upstream helpfully released yet another version, I'll investigate later this week. Bye, Joost
