On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:27:20PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> On 06/18/2014 11:17 AM, Ron wrote:
> >
> > Hi Breno,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:29:37AM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
> >> Package: opus
> >> Version: 1.1-1
> >>
> >> The package opus fails to build on ppc64el, as on new architectures,
> >> because
> >> the config.{guess,sub} files are out of date, and are not updated during
> >> the
> >> build, causing the following error:
> >>
> >> http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/ppc64el/debian/buildd-upstream/build_logs/logs/opus_1.1-1_ppc64el.build
> >
> > I'm curious why you think this one is related to config.*, since both of
> > those have the ppc64le definitions in the packaged version, and indeed
> > the build log you point to above itself shows that the library build
> > succeeded, as did its test suite (modulo some warnings you might want to
> > look into to see if they are real or bogus) -- and the place where it
> > actually fell over was executing:
>
> Right. The problem is on configure in fact. I should have reported that the
> autotools files were out-of-date, other than just config.*. Sorry.
That's ok, I just wanted to make sure we got to the bottom of the real
problem here, so I can audit whatever needs to change, and check any
other packages that might be subject to it as well.
I was a bit confused to get this report because I thought this one had
already been built on this arch before, but I guess not. I'd definitely
checked config.* for it previously, and thought it was using libtool that
was recent enough too.
> > Do you know why the test for building shared libs failed here?
> Yes. The problem is that configure doesn't know about ppc64el, and
> dh_autoreconf
> fixes it (with many other libtool configuration).
Ok, so this is libtool.m4 that needs a fix, and it looks like this is
indeed the only change we are missing from the latest version of it.
Unfortunately neither the libtool.m4 file, nor the _LT_ENABLE_LOCK
macro that this test is in are versioned in any way, but you might
still want to talk to the lintian maintainers and get them to add
a test for the 'ppc64-*linux*|powerpc64-*linux*)' line there, so
that it can bark about this needing to be updated (like it does for
other auto* that needs updating for new arches).
Then you'll get a nice list of them on the lintian report page so
everyone will know which packages need updates before you throw them
at the buildds and have them fail.
I'll get an update out for this, and any of my other packages that
are similarly in need, shortly.
Cheers,
Ron
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
