Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2

[James Cowgill]

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

[Ludovic Rousseau]

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

[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.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2

[Ludovic Rousseau]

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

[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?

This bug just caused 0ad to be removed from testing.
-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen