Re: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system

Dear Kambiz, Le mardi 26 avril 2022 à 10:30 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > I cleaned up my changes and pushed them to Salsa master. The CI pipeline > is sucesssful: > > https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/sbcl/-/pipelines/371612 > > I would appreciate if someone could sponsor the release

Re: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system

Hello, On 2022-04-06 13:31 +02, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > Your i386 change looks reasonable to me, and it should not break > anything. I cleaned up my changes and pushed them to Salsa master. The CI pipeline is sucesssful: https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/sbcl/-/pipelines/371612 I

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

Hi Kambiz, Le mardi 05 avril 2022 à 23:13 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > > > Now for the broken i386 build: make-config.sh relies on the > > > result of uname -m to determine the architecture and indeed, > > > the i386 build container reports x86_64: > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

Hello, >> Now for the broken i386 build: make-config.sh relies on the >> result of uname -m to determine the architecture and indeed, >> the i386 build container reports x86_64: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-guest/sbcl/-/jobs/2640765#L1327 >> >> And setting SBCL_ARCH explicitly in debian

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

Le mardi 05 avril 2022 à 11:09 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > > Do we have the possibility of installing the sbcl-source package > > which was built during the previous pipeline build stage? > > Sorry for the noise, re-reading the docs, I found 'Depends' in > debian/tests/control and together wi

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

> Do we have the possibility of installing the sbcl-source package > which was built during the previous pipeline build stage? Sorry for the noise, re-reading the docs, I found 'Depends' in debian/tests/control and together with the C_INCLUDE_PATH patch, autopkgtest is fixed: https://salsa.debian

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

Hi Kambiz, Le mardi 05 avril 2022 à 08:48 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > Hi Sébastien, > > > Unfortunately the autopkgtest fails, I had overlooked that problem in > > the previous iteration of our discussion. See: > > https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/sbcl/-/jobs/2624803 > > > > More p

Re: sbcl autopkgtest failure - missing sbcl.h (was: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system)

Hi Sébastien, > Unfortunately the autopkgtest fails, I had overlooked that problem in > the previous iteration of our discussion. See: > https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/sbcl/-/jobs/2624803 > > More precisely, the failing test is gc-cardmark.impure.lisp, and the > error message is: > >

Re: RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system

Hi Kambiz, Le jeudi 31 mars 2022 à 21:12 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > Dear all, > > I am looking for a sponsor for package "sbcl": > > * Package name: sbcl >Version : 2:2.2.3-1 > * URL : http://www.sbcl.org > * License : public-domain, Unicode, NTP~disc

RFS: sbcl/2:2.2.3-1 [NMU] -- Common Lisp compiler and development system

Dear all, I am looking for a sponsor for package "sbcl": * Package name: sbcl Version : 2:2.2.3-1 * URL : http://www.sbcl.org * License : public-domain, Unicode, NTP~disclaimer, Apache-2.0, Expat, NTP, permissive-xerox, BSD-3-clause * Vcs : http