Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2
Hi, On 18/11/17 16:41, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > 2017-11-18 17:28 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill : >> On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: >>> 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen : >>> [Ludovic Rousseau] > 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded > 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf > (Closes: #879071) Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the >> archive and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you file a request for removal? >>> >>> Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on >>> armhf" >>> >>> I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64, >>> kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed. >>> Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures? >> >> You can just retitle the original bug, with a message explaining the >> situation (assuming it isn't closed before then). >> >> Currently we have: >> 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | stretch | source, amd64, armhf, i386 >> 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | sid | source, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 >> 0ad | 0.0.22-3 | sid | source, amd64, i386 >> >> So I think only armhf and kfreebsd-* need removing (not arm64). kfreebsd >> doesn't affect testing migration in any case. > > So bug #880058, as it is, will remove the armhf version and 0ad should then > be able to migrate to testing. Yes. > I should _not_ file new bugs. Exact? It probably doesn't matter much, but I think it's easier to retitle existing bugs if you want to remove the kfreebsd-* binaries as well. James signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2
2017-11-18 17:28 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill : > Hi, > > On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > > Hello, > > > > 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen : > > > >> [Ludovic Rousseau] > >>> 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium > >>> . > >>>* Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded > >>> 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf > >>> (Closes: #879071) > >> > >> Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the > archive > >> and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the > >> armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you > >> file a request for removal? > >> > > > > Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on > > armhf" > > > > I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64, > > kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed. > > Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures? > > You can just retitle the original bug, with a message explaining the > situation (assuming it isn't closed before then). > > Currently we have: > 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | stretch | source, amd64, armhf, i386 > 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | sid | source, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 > 0ad | 0.0.22-3 | sid | source, amd64, i386 > > So I think only armhf and kfreebsd-* need removing (not arm64). kfreebsd > doesn't affect testing migration in any case. > So bug #880058, as it is, will remove the armhf version and 0ad should then be able to migrate to testing. I should _not_ file new bugs. Exact? Thanks -- Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2
Hi, On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > Hello, > > 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen : > >> [Ludovic Rousseau] >>> 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium >>> . >>>* Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded >>> 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf >>> (Closes: #879071) >> >> Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the archive >> and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the >> armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you >> file a request for removal? >> > > Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on > armhf" > > I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64, > kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed. > Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures? You can just retitle the original bug, with a message explaining the situation (assuming it isn't closed before then). Currently we have: 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | stretch | source, amd64, armhf, i386 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | sid | source, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 0ad | 0.0.22-3 | sid | source, amd64, i386 So I think only armhf and kfreebsd-* need removing (not arm64). kfreebsd doesn't affect testing migration in any case. Thanks, James signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2
Hello, 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen : > [Ludovic Rousseau] > > 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > >* Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded > > 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf > > (Closes: #879071) > > Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the archive > and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the > armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you > file a request for removal? > Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on armhf" I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64, kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed. Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures? This bug just caused 0ad to be removed from testing. > Yes. I saw that. Thanks -- Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2
[Ludovic Rousseau] > 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded > 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf > (Closes: #879071) Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the archive and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you file a request for removal? This bug just caused 0ad to be removed from testing. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen