Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
Hi, Adam Conrad wrote (23 Mar 2014 20:03:12 GMT) : Not fixing a bug isn't the way to get rid of it. I agree. My wording was not appropriate, and I'm sorry for the bad feelings I may have caused. Hoping to clarify a bit: 1. I'll try to go on playing the intermediate between the relevant parties (upstream and the Debian porters) and pinging people as needed, as I've been doing in the last 2.5 months. But if I cause communication problems again, then I'll ask for someone else on the Perl team to take over this task from me. 2. I want Jessie to be released with this package (and its reverse-dependencies) working on as many supported architectures as possible. Given I don't have the skills needed to port it to big-endian 64-bit architectures myself, all I can do is #1. So, whether Jessie ships this package on these architectures does not depend much on me. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85d2h9nqvh@boum.org
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
Hi, Lennart Sorensen wrote (22 Mar 2014 12:31:00 GMT) : Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working for powerpcspe. Adam Conrad wrote (22 Mar 2014 16:20:23 GMT) : Works fine for me on powerpc, Thanks a lot for testing! I've uploaded libglib-object-introspection-perl 0.020-2 with this patch applied. This should at least fix the problem for 32-bit big-endian architectures. Any s390x porter planning to work on this? (And if so, ETA?) I'd rather not drop s390x from the list of architectures this package is built for, but this RC bug has now been around for 6 months, and at some point I'll want to get rid of it. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85eh1tl0nn@boum.org
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) : https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552 Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and hopefully take care of this porting problem. I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in this package. AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this on other big-endian architectures? It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones. [1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working for powerpcspe. As expected it does NOT work on ppc64. I am not currently awake enough to try and figure out why. Since mips was already tested with the patch originally, that probably just leaves sparc and s390 to test (I can't tell if s390 tested it or not, only that s390x does not work yet due to being 64bit). On ppc64, failing to build the source package patched was confirmed. -- make[1]: Leaving directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»' dh_auto_test -a make[1]: Entering directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»' LD_LIBRARY_PATH=:build PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t t/00-basic-types.t ok t/arg-checks.t ok # Failed test at t/arrays.t line 14. # got: '0' # expected: '6' t/arrays.t Failed 28/29 subtests t/boxed.t . ok t/cairo-integration.t . ok # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 14. # got: '-40706304' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 16. # got: '7395392' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 17. # got: '7395392' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 18. # got: '-33534596' # expected: '46' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 22. # got: '7171660' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 26. # got: '-40706256' # expected: '23' # Looks like you failed 6 tests of 25. t/callbacks.t . Dubious, test returned 6 (wstat 1536, 0x600) Failed 6/25 subtests t/closures.t .. ok t/constants.t . ok t/enums.t . Failed 3/4 subtests t/hashes.t ok t/interface-implementation.t .. ok t/objects.t ... ok t/structs.t ... ok t/values.t ok t/vfunc-chaining.t ok t/vfunc-ref-counting.t ok Failed 3/16 test programs. 7/299 subtests failed. Test Summary Report --- t/arrays.t (Wstat: 9 Tests: 2 Failed: 1) Failed test: 2 Non-zero wait status: 9 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 29 tests but ran 2. t/callbacks.t (Wstat: 1536 Tests: 25 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 25 Non-zero exit status: 6 t/enums.t (Wstat: 11 Tests: 1 Failed: 0) Non-zero wait status: 11 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 4 tests but ran 1. Files=16, Tests=299, 835 wallclock secs ( 0.25 usr 0.09 sys + 74.57 cusr 19.01 csys = 93.92 CPU) Result: FAIL make[1]: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 make[1]: Leaving directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»' dh_auto_test: make -j1 test returned exit code 2 make: *** [build-arch] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build-arch gave error exit status 2 Build finished at 20140323-1923 Finished -- Hiroyuki Yamamoto A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/532ebcf2.3080...@gmail.com
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: I'd rather not drop s390x from the list of architectures this package is built for, but this RC bug has now been around for 6 months, and at some point I'll want to get rid of it. Not fixing a bug isn't the way to get rid of it. This isn't s390x specific, it's incorrect code leading to failure on 64-bit BE arches, of which there are several, it just happens that s390x is the only officially-supported one. I understand that you personally may not have the skills to fix it, and need input from either a porter or upstream, but that doesn't mean the bug magically doesn't exist if no one gives you a patch to fix it. ... Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140323200311.gf21...@0c3.net
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
Hi, intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) : https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552 Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and hopefully take care of this porting problem. I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in this package. AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this on other big-endian architectures? It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones. [1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch Thanks in advance! Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/854n2q7bdo@boum.org
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) : https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552 Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and hopefully take care of this porting problem. I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in this package. AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this on other big-endian architectures? It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones. [1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working for powerpcspe. As expected it does NOT work on ppc64. I am not currently awake enough to try and figure out why. Since mips was already tested with the patch originally, that probably just leaves sparc and s390 to test (I can't tell if s390 tested it or not, only that s390x does not work yet due to being 64bit). -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140322123100.gh17...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this on other big-endian architectures? It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones. [1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch Works fine for me on powerpc, but fails miserably on s390x: t/00-basic-types.t ok t/arg-checks.t ok t/arrays.t 1/29 # Failed test at t/arrays.t line 14. # got: '0' # expected: '6' Out of memory! # Looks like you planned 29 tests but ran 2. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2 run. # Looks like your test exited with 1 just after 2. t/arrays.t Failed 28/29 subtests t/boxed.t . ok t/cairo-integration.t . ok t/callbacks.t . 1/25 # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 14. # got: '6941192' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 16. # got: '894' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 17. # got: '894' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 18. # got: '-1071533088' # expected: '46' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 22. # got: '0' # expected: '23' # Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 26. # got: '-1071861040' # expected: '23' # Looks like you failed 6 tests of 25. t/callbacks.t . Dubious, test returned 6 (wstat 1536, 0x600) Failed 6/25 subtests t/closures.t .. ok t/constants.t . ok t/enums.t . Failed 3/4 subtests t/hashes.t ok t/interface-implementation.t .. ok t/objects.t ... ok t/structs.t ... ok t/values.t ok t/vfunc-chaining.t ok t/vfunc-ref-counting.t ok Test Summary Report --- t/arrays.t (Wstat: 9 Tests: 2 Failed: 1) Failed test: 2 Non-zero wait status: 9 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 29 tests but ran 2. t/callbacks.t (Wstat: 1536 Tests: 25 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 25 Non-zero exit status: 6 t/enums.t (Wstat: 11 Tests: 1 Failed: 0) Non-zero wait status: 11 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 4 tests but ran 1. Files=16, Tests=297, 222 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.03 sys + 11.27 cusr 39.60 csys = 50.97 CPU) Result: FAIL Failed 3/16 test programs. 7/297 subtests failed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140322162023.ge21...@0c3.net
