Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Control: retitle -1 "Will be removed once new version of libbiod is available" Hi, libundead was maintained as a predependency for libbiod. The latest version of libbiod will not need this any more (but needs to be uploaded after solving some issues). Kind regards, Andreas. --

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Hi, the package builds only for amd64 and i386. I wonder if it makes sense to simply restrict the architectures and close this bug. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Hi Matthias, On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:53:25AM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > Those issues are usually easy to fix, most often it's either some > stuff that is not linked or was compiled with the wrong D version, or > a missing source file. In this case it was the latter, I added it to > the

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

2017-12-14 8:29 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:06:11AM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> 2017-12-13 11:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : >> > control: tags -1 help >> > >> > I need to admit I have no idea how to proceed with this issue. :-(

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:06:11AM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2017-12-13 11:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > > control: tags -1 help > > > > I need to admit I have no idea how to proceed with this issue. :-( > > Please try to package the latest version of undead, or - if that

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

2017-12-13 11:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > control: tags -1 help > > I need to admit I have no idea how to proceed with this issue. :-( Please try to package the latest version of undead, or - if that is not desired - request a rebuild of the package on the failing

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

control: tags -1 help I need to admit I have no idea how to proceed with this issue. :-( Thanks for any help Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

On 9 April 2017 at 14:40, Andreas Tille wrote: > reopen 859667 > thanks > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:03:46PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> > >> > >> > I have the feelingt that this meand "no" to your second question. >> > >> >> isNaN is from the std.math module. >> >>

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

reopen 859667 thanks On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:03:46PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > > > > > I have the feelingt that this meand "no" to your second question. > > > > isNaN is from the std.math module. > > http://dlang.org/phobos/std_math.html#.isNaN > > You would need to import it. ;-) I

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Στις 07-04-2017, ημέρα Παρ, και ώρα 18:03 +0200, ο/η Iain Buclaw έγραψε: > On 7 April 2017 at 16:02, Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:22:28PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > > Which compiler? > > > > $ LANG=C apt-cache policy ldc > > ldc: > >   Installed:

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

On 7 April 2017 at 16:02, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:22:28PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> Which compiler? > > $ LANG=C apt-cache policy ldc > ldc: > Installed: 1:1.1.1-1 > >> Are NaNs being honoured? > > Hmmm, no idea how to check this. > Someone

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:22:28PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Which compiler? $ LANG=C apt-cache policy ldc ldc: Installed: 1:1.1.1-1 > Are NaNs being honoured? Hmmm, no idea how to check this. > What if you were to replace > the `(x != x && f != f)` comparison with `(isNaN(x) && isNaN(f))`

Bug#859667: [Pkg-d-devel] Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Which compiler? Are NaNs being honoured? What if you were to replace the `(x != x && f != f)` comparison with `(isNaN(x) && isNaN(f))` ? On 5 April 2017 at 22:00, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I admit I'm totally clueless and thus I'm asking D language team as well as >

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Hi, I admit I'm totally clueless and thus I'm asking D language team as well as porters for help. Thanks for any helpful hint Andreas. On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:43:04PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Source: libundead > Version: 1.0.6-1 > Severity: important > Justification: fails to

Bug#859667: libundead: FTBFS on armhf and ppc64el: tests fail

Source: libundead Version: 1.0.6-1 Severity: important Justification: fails to build from source The libundead builds for armhf and ppc64 both failed with test suite errors. On armf, I see no specific indication of what went wrong, but presume it should be possible to reproduce the problem on a