Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 935902 g++-9
Bug #935902 [libcppunit-dev] libcppunit-dev: segfault when using with a program
compiled with g++-9
Bug reassigned from package 'libcppunit-dev' to 'g++-9'.
No longer marked as found in versions cppunit/1.14.0-4.
Ignoring re
reassign 935902 g++-9
affects 935902 libcppunit-dev
found 935902 9.2.1-12
close 935902 9.2.1-16
thanks
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:15:10PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The comment about cppunit made me look at the cppunit package to find
> #935902, and yes, the test case is reproducible. So
>> And afaik there was no test rebuild for bullseye
>> either.
>
> It does not help to blame people for not doing a rebuild when there is no
rebuild necessary.
Please could you turn off your mode feeling attacked by any email, before you
understood these?
On 31.10.19 15:33, rene.engelh...@ma
Hi,
Am 31. Oktober 2019 15:15:10 MEZ schrieb Matthias Klose :
>And afaik there was no test rebuild for
>bullseye
>either.
Accepted cppunit 1.14.0-4 (source) into unstable
On July 26:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1049803/accepted-cppunit-1140-4-source-into-unstable/
Buster release was 3 wee
Hi,
Am 31. Oktober 2019 15:15:10 MEZ schrieb Matthias Klose :
>On 29.10.19 15:09, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2019-10-29 13:09:46 +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote:
>>> Am 29. Oktober 2019 12:49:44 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre
>:
In case makefile magic triggers some rebuild, you can als
On 29.10.19 15:09, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2019-10-29 13:09:46 +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote:
Am 29. Oktober 2019 12:49:44 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
In case makefile magic triggers some rebuild, you can also run the
generated executable directly (with the right environment varia
Hi,
Am 29. Oktober 2019 15:09:50 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
>On 2019-10-29 13:09:46 +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote:
>> Am 29. Oktober 2019 12:49:44 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre
>:
>> >In case makefile magic triggers some rebuild, you can also run the
>> >generated executable directly (w
On 2019-10-29 13:09:46 +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote:
> Am 29. Oktober 2019 12:49:44 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
> >In case makefile magic triggers some rebuild, you can also run the
> >generated executable directly (with the right environment variables,
> >in case this matters). If the
Hi,
Am 29. Oktober 2019 12:49:44 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
>In case makefile magic triggers some rebuild, you can also run the
>generated executable directly (with the right environment variables,
>in case this matters). If the programs honors the system ABI, this
>is allowed, and you'll effec
On 2019-10-29 11:52:55 +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Am 29. Oktober 2019 11:26:41 MEZ schrieb rene.engelh...@mailbox.org:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Am 29. Oktober 2019 10:59:07 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre
> >:
> >> If you build LO
> >>with an older gcc-9 version, upgrade libstdc++6,
Hi again,
Am 29. Oktober 2019 11:26:41 MEZ schrieb rene.engelh...@mailbox.org:
>Hi,
>
>Am 29. Oktober 2019 10:59:07 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre
>:
>> If you build LO
>>with an older gcc-9 version, upgrade libstdc++6, and run the test
>>again (without rebuilding it), does it fail?
>
>This is imposs
Hi,
Am 29. Oktober 2019 10:59:07 MEZ schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
> If you build LO
>with an older gcc-9 version, upgrade libstdc++6, and run the test
>again (without rebuilding it), does it fail?
This is impossible. This is a C++ unit test and the stuff assumes too much of
the build tree. You need
On 2019-10-28 23:34:11 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> You like to make other people bad where this is not the case. In this
> case this is not a LO bug since the exact same LO version worked until
> said gcc upload.
If the LO code has some undefined behavior, it could also be a LO bug
triggered by
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:39:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > but let's try to work together to fix the current situation.
That's what I tried, but... Disabling make check (as will be done)
is not "fix"ing but just hiding it.
> my moreinfo tag was removed, and I'm not interested in a b
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:39:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 28.10.19 22:17, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > The visible progress on this bug report stopped several days ago. I'd
> > like to try an get it a bit further. I'm expecting frustration on all
> > sides,
>
> yes, an
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:17:49PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Rene, I really appreciate the fact that libreoffice has an extensive
> test suite. But just to get options on the table can you please tell us
> how severe this particular failure is? In other words, how much is this
> telling you
On 28.10.19 22:17, Paul Gevers wrote:
Dear all,
The visible progress on this bug report stopped several days ago. I'd
like to try an get it a bit further. I'm expecting frustration on all
sides,
yes, and side note that I will use the same terms of "several days ago" for a
three day silence in
Dear all,
The visible progress on this bug report stopped several days ago. I'd
like to try an get it a bit further. I'm expecting frustration on all
sides, but let's try to work together to fix the current situation. In
case you aren't aware, the fact that gcc-9 hasn't migrated to testing in
the
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 06:33:13PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 06:25:43PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > [...] -12 was uploaded on Oct 23, but you say
> > that the tests started failing on Oct 21.
>
> No, the submitter did which clearly was wrong. Please read the
19 matches
Mail list logo
