On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:34:38PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > I've subscribed to the list. No need to CC me. Thanks. > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:10:08 -0600 > Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:43:59AM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza > > Cascardo wrote: > > > Hello, Folks. > > > > > > I've found a kind of a circular dependency when checking for > > > versions of perl and linux-2.6 packages. > > > > > > linux-2.6 won't build because it build-depends on dpkg-dev, which > > > depends on perl5 and perl-modules. perl5 is provided by perl, which > > > is version 5.8.8-7. 5.8.8-8 and onwards won't build because they > > > build-depends on gcc-4.2. > > > > Actually, we also need a sourceful upload of gcc-defaults [gcc (>= > > 4:4.2)] (see bug #451190). gcc-4.2_4.2.2-3 built fine and is already > > in the archive. > > > > Yes. gcc-defaults builds fine. However, if you check the source > (debian/rules), you will see that m68k gets 4.1 versions. Since it's > less than 30 lines, I will copy it:
Hence bug #451190 and why we're waiting on a sourceful upload of gcc-defaults. > So, I guess only some GCJ stuff is 4.2. By the changelog, you can see > m68k is the only bad child :-(: At that point we'd never built gcc-4.2, if I recall. > (a cross compiler) and did not build in the buildd either > (http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gcc-4.2;ver=4.2.2-4;arch=m68k;stamp=1196273914). > And that's for the same reason. I've checked linux-libc-dev and did not > find the cachectl.h header. So, I've decided to check in my git version > of Linux. And I could find by a log message that since 2.6.24-rc1, we > have a fix. Before I've sent a message to the list, I went to the > history and found this message: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2007/10/msg00035.html > > So, it seems Geert (or Matthew Wilcox, not sure) has fixed it and it > was a reply to a message you have sent. > > > > Well, gcc-4.2 won't build because it requires a patch which is only > > > on 2.6.24-rc1 vanilla, so we shouldn't expect it in debian unless > > > the patch is applied for 2.6.23, right? > > > > Is that true? Could I get a reference for that? Otherwise I can > > requeue the build. > > Oh that totally rings a bell. Thanks. I'll go patch vivaldi and queue gcc-4.2. > Next time, I will give the references in the message. Sorry. No worries, thanks for the cluebat. Peace, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
