Does GCC 5 do something to cause dpkg-gensymbols to break? For example, I was checking the list to see if anything I deal with directly was broken, and checked a few of the other failures for packages I depend on, to see what to expect. In doing so, I ran across the ubuntu-download-manager [1] failure. It seems to actually build just fine, but the dpkg-gensymbols check is failing. It seems to no longer export the operator() method on std::function definitions. For example:
- (c++)"std::function<void (Ubuntu::DownloadManager::Download*)>::operator()(Ubuntu::DownloadManager::Download*) const@Base" 0.4+14.10.20140618 +#MISSING: 0.9+15.04.20141202-0ubuntu1# (c++)"std::function<void (Ubuntu::DownloadManager::Download*)>::operator()(Ubuntu::DownloadManager::Download*) const@Base" 0.4+14.10.20140618 This is not mentioned in the porting guide that I can see though, and removing these from the .symbols file will break building on gcc 4.x. The porting guide only mentions converting std::nullptr_t to bool in C++ issues. What's the best way to deal with this if it comes up? [1] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/198342635/buildlog_ubuntu-vivid-i386.ubuntu-download-manager_0.9%2B15.04.20141202-0ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 00:12 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Hi, > > two test rebuilds for vivid are almost finished on all architectures (pending > powerpc and arm64). It's time to address the build failures seen with these > test rebuilds. The most important ones are listed in [1] for the vivid > archives. These really have to be addressed. > > In preparation for the w-series (15.10), there was another test rebuild using > GCC 5 (yes, GCC 5 will be the default for 15.10, without any possibility to > fall > back to older g++ and gfortran versions). Some outfall as usual [2]. I think > the switch to GCC 5 will cause a bit more work than the switch to GCC 4.9 in > utopic, so I would like to address as many issues as possible before the > switch, > even during the preparation of the 15.04 (vivid) release. Safe uploads to > vivid > would be appreciated. To check for buildability with GCC 5, add the > ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA [3] to your apt sources. If you have time to > kill, > please fix these issues now. Make sure to forward fixes to the Debian bug > tracker, bugs were filed for a Debian test rebuild as well [4]. Help for > porting issues can be found in the GCC 5 porting notes [5] and an analysis of > a > test rebuild for another distro [6]. > > If you can't, or if you don't want to do an upload, please make sure to file a > launchpad issue, and tag it with 'ftbfs' and probably 'patch', then the issue > will show up in [1] and [2]. > > Help would be appreciated to fix issues in packages like boost so that we can > get more reliable test rebuild results. > > Thanks, Matthias > > [1] > http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/test-rebuild-20150202-vivid.html > [2] > http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/test-rebuild-20150202-gcc5-vivid.html > [3] https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/test > [4] > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-5;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org > [5] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html > [6] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/207549.html >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
