Bug#987641: Bug#988830: [pre-approval] unblock e2fsprogs [Was: Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel]

2021-05-24 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Theodore Y. Ts'o (2021-05-20): > The real world corner cases are if you are using a 32-bit arm binary > on a 64-bit binary, and if you are using a sparc64 system (not an > officially supported Debian arch). I'm not sure if misaligned pointer > accesses are allowed in arm-32 kernel code, but it's

Bug#987641: Bug#988830: [pre-approval] unblock e2fsprogs [Was: Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel]

2021-05-20 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 05:55:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Paul Gevers (2021-05-20): > > On 20-05-2021 00:11, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, there was no release.debian.org bug to track this. Due > > to the current high volume to our list, this fell from the radar. To >

Bug#987641: Bug#988830: [pre-approval] unblock e2fsprogs [Was: Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel]

2021-05-20 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Hi Ted, Paul Gevers (2021-05-20): > On 20-05-2021 00:11, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > Ping to the debian-release bug. > > Unfortunately, there was no release.debian.org bug to track this. Due > to the current high volume to our list, this fell from the radar. To > avoid this I now generate a

Bug#987641: [PING to debian-release] Re: Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel

2021-05-19 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
Ping to the debian-release bug. Do you want me to upload a fix to this bug where e2fsprogs fails its regression test (and thus its package build) when armhf and armel are running on a 64-bit ARM platform, but they were built successfully when run on a 32-bit ARM builder? No question this is a

Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel

2021-05-03 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Maybe I should give a bit of context here. First of all, there is one armhf > buildd, arm-arm-01, setup as an arm64 machine with a 32-bit armhf chroot. It > has been setup following [1] a study from Steve McIntyre [1]. It appears

Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel

2021-05-03 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Hi, Le 03/05/2021 à 22:23, Theodore Ts'o a écrit : On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:01:45PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Source: e2fsprogs Version: 1.46.2-1 Severity: serious Tags: upstream ftbfs Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) Forwarded:

Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel

2021-05-03 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:01:45PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Source: e2fsprogs > Version: 1.46.2-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: upstream ftbfs > Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) > Forwarded: https://github.com/tytso/e2fsprogs/issues/65 > >

Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel

2021-04-26 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Source: e2fsprogs Version: 1.46.2-1 Severity: serious Tags: upstream ftbfs Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) Forwarded: https://github.com/tytso/e2fsprogs/issues/65 e2fsprogs builds fine on armel/armhf when built on a machine with a 32-bit kernel.