Re: issue with preadv/pwritev and gcc on armel/armhf

Le mar. 28 janv. 2025 à 10:21, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025, at 09:38, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > Le mar. 28 janv. 2025 à 09:29, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > >> > >> The bit I don't understand is why libuv was ever getting built > >> without l

Re: issue with preadv/pwritev and gcc on armel/armhf

Le mar. 28 janv. 2025 à 09:29, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025, at 19:31, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > Le lun. 27 janv. 2025 à 17:41, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025, at 15:19, Jérémy Lal wrote: > >> > >>if ((sizeof(long)< si

Re: issue with preadv/pwritev and gcc on armel/armhf

Le lun. 27 janv. 2025 à 17:41, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025, at 15:19, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > Hi, > > > > as discussed in > > https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/4678 > > > > and associated build failures > > https://buildd

issue with preadv/pwritev and gcc on armel/armhf

Hi, as discussed in https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/4678 and associated build failures https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libuv1&suite=experimental It seems that gcc is doing something wrong with the offset parameter of preadv, pwritev. The same problem happens with optimizatio

Re: Multiple failure for nodejs unrelated packages on armel

I've tried with a trixie armel chroot, and indeed some tests time out. It's a common problem on slow architectures - the timeout value set in the test suite is often too short. Le dim. 4 août 2024 à 12:05, Jérémy Lal a écrit : > Cannot reproduce in a sid armel chroot on amda

Re: Multiple failure for nodejs unrelated packages on armel

Cannot reproduce in a sid armel chroot on amdahl.debian.org. Le dim. 4 août 2024 à 10:37, Bastien Roucariès a écrit : > Hi, > > test fail on armel only > > See: > https://ci.debian.net/packages/n/node-lru-cache/testing/armel/49749211/ > https://ci.debian.net/packages/n/npm/testing/armel/49963003

Re: python-cryptography vs. stainless steel ports

Le lun. 11 mars 2024 à 21:53, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > Jérémy Lal dixit: > > >While I'm very much concerned about architectures and compatibility, > >it seems that for python-cryptography, it's a sinking boat: > >The end of a very discussion dates from febr

Re: python-cryptography vs. stainless steel ports

Le lun. 11 mars 2024 à 20:17, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > Hi, > > we have still the situation that the current python-cryptography, > having rather heavy rust ecosystem dependencies, cannot be built > on some debian-ports architectures. > > This situation is not likely to go away: > > • some port

Re: Debian on Lenovo Chromebook (ARMv8)

Le jeu. 30 mars 2023 à 23:54, Brian Sammon < debian-arm-l...@brisammon.fastmail.fm> a écrit : > I currently have a Lenovo Duet 5 chromebook (with ARM processor) that runs > debian off an SD Card via USB. > > > The problem is that instead of a normal BIOS or UEFI, thelaptop has the > > nasty Chrome

odd difference between two similar armhf build servers

Hi, Some tests in nodejs test suite consistently fail on "hoiby" but not on "antheil": https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=nodejs&arch=armhf Is there a difference between the two servers that could explain the different results ? Thanks for any hint. Jérémy

Re: Bug#1017961: mozjs102: Fails to build on armel

Le mer. 31 août 2022 à 03:55, Wookey a écrit : > On 2022-08-25 11:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > I don't have a good picture of where this puts us on a scale from "it's > > basically fine" to "armel users will report grave

hung during build on arm-ubc-01

Hi, a build failure happened while building nodejs: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=nodejs&ver=14.16.1~dfsg-1&arch=arm64 i'm trying to see if there was a real reason besides "external contingencies": - any differences (in instruction set ?) between "arm-ubc-01" and "arm-conova-02" ?

Re: nodejs on arm64 now in experimental

2015-09-11 10:48 GMT+02:00 Edmund Grimley Evans < edmund.grimley.ev...@gmail.com>: > This seems to be the problem on armel: > > configure:o['variables']['arm_fpu'] = 'vfpv2' > > It probably should be "vfp" instead of "vfpv2". A GCC man page says: > >-mfpu=name >-mfpe=number >

Re: libv8 packaging and arm64

Le mercredi 10 septembre 2014 à 15:48 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:03:57PM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: > >Le mercredi 10 septembre 2014 à 13:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> I've been looking through

Re: libv8 packaging and arm64

Le mercredi 10 septembre 2014 à 13:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > Hi guys, > > I've been looking through the (shrinking) list of packages that we > don't have built yet for arm64 and I can see nodejs and friends are > still there. That's likely to be very important for some people > wanting

Re: Dropping armel/ixp4xx

Le lundi 14 avril 2014 à 02:02 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > The ixp4xx kernel is now too big to fit in the flash partitions: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=linux&arch=armel&ver=3.14-1~exp1&stamp=1397151242 > > I intend to disable this flavour for the next upload of 3.14 and r

Re: chromium segfaults on startup on armhf

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:52:00 +, peter green wrote: > Anyway I have some bad news. When I try to do an armel build with bfd on > my imx board I get. > LINK(target) out/Release/chrome > /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Memory exhausted > collect2: ld returned 1 exit st