On lun, ott 28, 2013 at 09:36:22 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/28/2013 6:02 PM, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:24:28PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > >>Hi all, > >> > >>long story short, a couple years ago armel builds for valgrind were enabled > >>(despite the fact that valgrind only supports ARMv7) by building the > >>package in > >>cross-compile mode and forcing the -march=armv7-a option on buildds that > >>didn't > >>support ARMv7 natively. This was done so that ARMv7 armel systems could use > >>valgrind (see #592614). > >> > >>This has sort of worked for a while, until a couple months ago when valgrind > >>started FTBFS on armel (#720409). This was a simple routine rebuild for the > >>openmpi transition, so I'm inclined to think that I did not broke anything > >>myself. My next upload 1:3.8.1-5 (a month later) still failed to build, > >>making > >>me think that this is not a transient failure. > >> > >>Hence the idea: what about dropping valgrind from armel? Or alternatively, > >>is > >>there anyone who cares about valgrind on armel and wants to debug and try to > >>fix this (possibly without making the original kinda ugly hack any worse)? > > > >So, no one? In the next few days I'm going to upload a new version disabling > >armel builds and ask the release team to drop it as well. If it turns out > >that > >many people actually used valgrind on armel, I guess I can re-enable it later > >(once it works again). > > > >Cheers > > > > Are you disabling all armel builds? Or just valgrind on armel?
Not sure if I understood the question correctly, but I was referring only to
valgrind's armel build (I don't quite have the power to eliminate a whole
Debian port I'm afraid ;)
Also, please CC me since I'm not subscibed to the list (I forgot to mention
that before).
Cheers
--
perl -E '$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
