tags 649038 + patch
thanks
Hi,
After applying the fix for #615507, the remaining test failure I see is:
> FAIL: run-native-test.sh
>
>
> allregs: cannot attach to process: Function not implemented
which is an expected consequence of Bug #570805 (and is not necessarily
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 649038 + patch
Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
649038: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649038
Debian Bug
On 13/11/2013 10:48, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> And ELFOSABI_LINUX describe ELF files which do use
> such GNU extensions. What is the convention on Debian/kfreebsd?
Well, we used to provide these features before ELFOSABI_LINUX became a
requirement for having them. Now we can't provide them anymore (si
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 23:31 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 15:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 00:45 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> Nothing as far as ELF compliance is concerned. This tag is ment to be
> >> consumed by the kernel ELF loader only.
> >
> > For elfuti
On 11/11/2013 15:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 00:45 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> ELFOSABI_FREEBSD indicates this
>> binary has been built to run on kFreeBSD and uses its kernel ABI.
>>
>> If a binary is set to ELFOSABI_LINUX, then the kernel will enable Linux
>> emulation mode
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:32:09PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > >> - The other failures look like issues with the /proc interface
> > >> on the install. Does the /proc interface follow the Linux kernel
> > >> /proc interface that some of the tests rely on?
> >
> > Yes. But as there's
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 00:45 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> ELFOSABI_FREEBSD indicates this
> binary has been built to run on kFreeBSD and uses its kernel ABI.
>
> If a binary is set to ELFOSABI_LINUX, then the kernel will enable Linux
> emulation mode, i.e. Linux syscall interface.
Aha. Interestin
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:50:06PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > On 10/11/13 22:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >> > FAIL: run-native-test.sh
> >> > FAIL: dwfl-bug-fd-leak
>
> On 10/11/13 23:17, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > Was that with sbuild or similar chroot environment? These look like the
> On 10/11/13 22:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > FAIL: run-native-test.sh
>> > FAIL: dwfl-bug-fd-leak
On 10/11/13 23:17, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Was that with sbuild or similar chroot environment? These look like the
> original issue from bug #649038.
Could I please check this; you saw those fa
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:30:16AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Steven Chamberlain (2013-11-10):
> > We could work around that by a porter building it outside of sbuild
> > and doing a binNMU. It's not a permanent solution, but it would at
> > least allow elfutils' other RC bug fixes to migrat
Steven Chamberlain (2013-11-10):
> We could work around that by a porter building it outside of sbuild
> and doing a binNMU. It's not a permanent solution, but it would at
> least allow elfutils' other RC bug fixes to migrate meanwhile.
As a mere spectator, it looks like porter uploads happened
On 10/11/13 22:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Anyway, with that patch applied I end up with:
>
> FAIL: run-native-test.sh
>
>
> /home/kroeckx/elfutils-0.157/tests/allregs:
> dwfl_module_register_names: Callback returned failure
>
> FAIL: dwfl-bug-fd-leak
>
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12:38PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> On 20:07, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > > FAIL: run-disasm-x86.sh
> > > ===
> > >
> > > In file included from :0:0:
> > > /usr/include/stdc-predef.h:30:26: fatal error: bits/pred
Control: tags -1 + patch
On 20:07, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > FAIL: run-disasm-x86.sh
> > ===
> >
> > In file included from :0:0:
> > /usr/include/stdc-predef.h:30:26: fatal error: bits/predefs.h: No such file
> > or directory
> > #include
> > ^
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + patch
Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd
Added tag(s) patch.
--
649038: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649038
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs
Please consider outputting the contents of tests/test-suite.log so that
it appears in the build log. Here are examples of how some other
packages have done this:
http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=cat.*test.*suite\.log
The new failure is related to a libc0.1 header:
> FAIL: run-disasm-x86.sh
On 10/11/2013 00:18, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> - elflint doesn't know about the OS ABI "FreeBSD".
>> - Is this correct in the ELF files?
Yes.
>> I don't know whether
>> kfreebsd is supposed to follow the user space ELF OS ABI
>> or the kernel one.
I'm not sure what you
Currently I see some different testsuite failures than before. This was
in a sid chroot on kfreebsd-amd64 (not using bind mounts) :
run-native-test.sh passes for me.
> FAIL: run-disasm-x86.sh
that failure is new.
> ../config/test-driver: line 95: 44771 Segmentation fault "$@" >
> $log_fi
Hi,
debian-bsd@ was not put in Cc: for this bug, so the recent discussion
was probably not seen yet by people who can answer:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:02:18 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> - Would it help to just disable the testsuite on the kfreebsd arch?
> Clearly the package
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:21:49PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: severity -1 serious
>
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:42:21PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >>
> >> That doesn't make it this build failure non RC though.
> >
> > Failure to build on a buildd is not an RC bug. It builds
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> - Would it help to just disable the testsuite on the kfreebsd arch?
> Clearly the package itself build fine. But some tests are failing.
> Although it would be nice to have 100% PASS as on GNU/Linux, the
> fa
Two questions:
- Would it help to just disable the testsuite on the kfreebsd arch?
Clearly the package itself build fine. But some tests are failing.
Although it would be nice to have 100% PASS as on GNU/Linux, the
failures don't look too terrible for a new architecture that has
not been t
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd
Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal'
--
649038: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649038
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Am 20.09.2013 20:40, schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
> severity 649038 normal
> block 649038 by 570805
> thanks
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:14:00PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> severity 649038 serious
>> thanks
>>
>> Hi Kurt,
>>
>> since kfreebsd is a release architecture, this makes this bug RC, as it
severity 649038 normal
block 649038 by 570805
thanks
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:14:00PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> severity 649038 serious
> thanks
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> since kfreebsd is a release architecture, this makes this bug RC, as it
> blocks testing migration.
> If libelf is not supposed
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 649038 normal
Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
> block 649038 by 570805
Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd
649038 was blocked by: 570805 615507
649038 was not blockin
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 02:33:41AM +, peter green wrote:
> package: elfutils
> version: 0.152-1
> severity: serious
>
> From the debian buildd logs for 0.152-1+b1 (copy/paste taken from
> the kfreebsd-i386 one but kfreebsd-amd64 looks similar)
This is #570805.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
package: elfutils
version: 0.152-1
severity: serious
From the debian buildd logs for 0.152-1+b1 (copy/paste taken from the
kfreebsd-i386 one but kfreebsd-amd64 looks similar)
make[2]: Entering directory
`/build/buildd-elfutils_0.152-1+b1-kfreebsd-i386-3v8mAz/elfutils-0.152/tests'
/usr/bin/mak
28 matches
Mail list logo
