Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:55:52AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: If you're about to do an upload (say next couple of weeks), then just Upload of xfsprogs 2.7.16 has now been done.. cheers. -- Nathan pgpvdNZOXAw1I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:42:19PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:18:49PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:23:29AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: ... I'd simply compile the package with gcc-4.1. If you're not planning a sourceful upload any time soon, this would get the package up-to-date and I'd have one less buildd failure for my arch. :) Oh, OK - please, go right ahead. I have a couple of changes in xfsprogs pending - would an upload from me help / hinder you at this stage? If you're about to do an upload (say next couple of weeks), then just let me know when you do so I can grab the buildd. If you're not planning on doing it anytime soon, then I'll build it when I have free time (in the next week or so). -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
Hi Stephen, On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:55:52AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: If you're about to do an upload (say next couple of weeks), then just let me know when you do so I can grab the buildd. If you're not planning on doing it anytime soon, then I'll build it when I have free OK - I'll do an upload later today. cheers. -- Nathan pgpXApxeHppVC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
Package: xfsprogs Version: 2.7.14-1 Severity: important The ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage (333536) which persists on m68k in gcc-4.0 is fixed in gcc-4.1. I'm willing to do a binNMU if that would be helpful. http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=xfsprogsver=2.7.14-1arch=m68kstamp=1140132642file=logas=raw -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:56:56AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: Package: xfsprogs Version: 2.7.14-1 Severity: important The ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage (333536) which persists on m68k in gcc-4.0 is fixed in gcc-4.1. This looks like a clear gcc bug - why is it assigned to xfsprogs? (I guess I need to know how do you expect this to become fixed by any change in xfsprogs?). Do you want a platform-specific dependency on gcc-4.1 or later (is that even possible?). I'm willing to do a binNMU if that would be helpful. I'm not sure what you'd be changing, so not sure how a binary NMU would help the situation? cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:23:29AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: This looks like a clear gcc bug - why is it assigned to xfsprogs? (I guess I need to know how do you expect this to become fixed by any change in xfsprogs?). Do you want a platform-specific dependency on gcc-4.1 or later (is that even possible?). Yes it's possible, but you may not wish to go to the trouble. It's mostly up to you. At some point, hopefully soon, gcc-4.1 will be the default compiler on m68k. I'm willing to do a binNMU if that would be helpful. I'm not sure what you'd be changing, so not sure how a binary NMU would help the situation? I'd simply compile the package with gcc-4.1. If you're not planning a sourceful upload any time soon, this would get the package up-to-date and I'd have one less buildd failure for my arch. :) -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#360740: [m68k] xfsprogs builds with gcc-4.1
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:18:49PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:23:29AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: ... I'd simply compile the package with gcc-4.1. If you're not planning a sourceful upload any time soon, this would get the package up-to-date and I'd have one less buildd failure for my arch. :) Oh, OK - please, go right ahead. I have a couple of changes in xfsprogs pending - would an upload from me help / hinder you at this stage? cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
