Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Hi Emanuele, On 2023-09-11 12:07, Emanuele Rocca wrote: On 2023-09-09 08:38, Andrius Merkys wrote: This is news to me. Could you please point out where in Debian Policy I can read more about such requirement? I thought I saw packages dropping support for one or another release architecture without being removed from testing. Seehttps://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt section 4 (Autobuilding). Thanks for the pointer. According to the cited RC policy this is indeed an RC bug. I will see what I can do about it. Best, Andrius
Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Hello Andrius, On 2023-09-09 08:38, Andrius Merkys wrote: > This is news to me. Could you please point out where in Debian Policy I can > read more about such requirement? I thought I saw packages dropping support > for one or another release architecture without being removed from testing. See https://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt section 4 (Autobuilding). Emanuele
Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Hi Emanuele, On 2023-09-05 16:58, Emanuele Rocca wrote: On 2023-08-28 07:42, Andrius Merkys wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:29:10 +0200 Emanuele Rocca wrote: asmjit does not build correctly on the following architectures: armel, armhf, mips64el, mipsel, s390x. Does this constitute an RC bug? If not, severity should be lowered. It does, on armel and armhf the package did build successfully in the past. See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=asmjit&arch=armhf https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=asmjit&arch=armel This is news to me. Could you please point out where in Debian Policy I can read more about such requirement? I thought I saw packages dropping support for one or another release architecture without being removed from testing. Bug retitled given that meanwhile the issue has been fixed on mips64el, mipsel, and s390x. This is correct, thanks. Best wishes, Andrius
Processed: Re: Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 asmjit: FTBFS on armel and armhf Bug #1049872 [src:asmjit] FTBFS on multiple release architectures Changed Bug title to 'asmjit: FTBFS on armel and armhf' from 'FTBFS on multiple release architectures'. -- 1049872: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1049872 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Control: retitle -1 asmjit: FTBFS on armel and armhf Hi Andrius, On 2023-08-28 07:42, Andrius Merkys wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:29:10 +0200 Emanuele Rocca wrote: > > asmjit does not build correctly on the following architectures: > > armel, armhf, mips64el, mipsel, s390x. > > Does this constitute an RC bug? If not, severity should be lowered. It does, on armel and armhf the package did build successfully in the past. See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=asmjit&arch=armhf https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=asmjit&arch=armel Bug retitled given that meanwhile the issue has been fixed on mips64el, mipsel, and s390x.
Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Hi, On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:29:10 +0200 Emanuele Rocca wrote: asmjit does not build correctly on the following architectures: armel, armhf, mips64el, mipsel, s390x. Does this constitute an RC bug? If not, severity should be lowered. Thanks, Andrius
Bug#1049872: FTBFS on multiple release architectures
Source: asmjit
Version: 0.0~git20230427.3577608-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie ftbfs
Hi,
asmjit does not build correctly on the following architectures:
armel, armhf, mips64el, mipsel, s390x.
On armel, armhf, and s390x the error is tests-related:
[...]
1: Success:
1: All tests passed!
6/6 Test #1: asmjit_test_unit . Passed 57.81 sec
83% tests passed, 1 tests failed out of 6
Total Test time (real) = 57.82 sec
The following tests FAILED:
6 - asmjit_test_compiler (SEGFAULT)
Errors while running CTest
make[1]: *** [Makefile:74: test] Error 8
make[1]: Leaving directory '/<>/obj-arm-linux-gnueabi'
dh_auto_test: error: cd obj-arm-linux-gnueabi && make -j4 test
ARGS\+=--verbose ARGS\+=-j4 returned exit code 2
make: *** [debian/rules:7: binary-arch] Error 25
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary-arch subprocess returned exit
status 2
On mips64el and mipsel the failure looks different:
[...]
[ 91%] Building CXX object
CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp.o
/usr/bin/c++ -I"/<>/src" -g -O2
-ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fvisibility=hidden
-Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -fno-math-errno -fno-threadsafe-statics
-fno-semantic-interposition -DASMJIT_STATIC -O2 -fmerge-all-constants
-fno-enforce-eh-specs -MD -MT
CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp.o -MF
CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp.o.d -o
CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp.o -c
"/<>/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp"
/<>/test/asmjit_test_perf.h:56:22: error: expected unqualified-id
before numeric constant
56 | static inline double mips(double duration, uint64_t instCount)
noexcept {
| ^~~~
In file included from /<>/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp:15:
/<>/test/asmjit_test_perf.h: In function ‘void
asmjit_perf_utils::bench(asmjit::_abi_1_10::CodeHolder&,
asmjit::_abi_1_10::Arch, uint32_t, const char*, uint32_t, const FuncT&)’:
/<>/test/asmjit_test_perf.h:105:34: error: expression cannot be
used as a function
105 | printf(", %8.3f [MI/s]", mips(duration, instCount));
| ^
make[3]: *** [CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/build.make:93:
CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/test/asmjit_test_perf_a64.cpp.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory '/<>/obj-mips64el-linux-gnuabi64'
make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:178: CMakeFiles/asmjit_test_perf.dir/all]
Error 2
