Moin,
thanks for your work! I'll added the NMU patch to the git repo too.
Best regards,
sandro
--
On Montag, 5. Juni 2017 22:28:10 CEST Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 10:44:59AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> >...
> >
> > This looks unnecessarily ugly to me (or I miss something).
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 10:44:59AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>...
> This looks unnecessarily ugly to me (or I miss something). Why not use
> dpkg-buildflags' mechanism for this? See e.g.
>...
> In this case maybe _APPEND -g1 (if you don't do the _STRIP)
Thanks, your _APPEND suggestion is much b
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 12:07:48AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> --- qtwebengine-opensource-src-5.7.1+dfsg/debian/rules2017-01-18
> 20:00:38.0 +0200
> +++ qtwebengine-opensource-src-5.7.1+dfsg/debian/rules2017-06-04
> 22:12:35.0 +0300
> @@ -6,16 +6,22 @@
> expo
Hey,
thanks for your help.
Please go for an NMU (delay 0 is fine for me). I'll add the patch to the git
repo, if you don't have access to it.
Best Regards,
sandro
--
> I found the problem:
> The -g is coming from dpkg-buildflags.
>
> Below is the smallest patch I see for this, a proper reshu
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 09:33:38PM +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote:
> Hey,
>
> > No, the fix would be to not produce 1 GB of debug info for this library:
>
> > The build log [1] confirms that -g is used in the i386 build.
> >
> > -g0 instead of -g (or no -g option) would surely solve this problem.
> >
Hey,
> No, the fix would be to not produce 1 GB of debug info for this library:
> The build log [1] confirms that -g is used in the i386 build.
>
> -g0 instead of -g (or no -g option) would surely solve this problem.
>
> -g1 would likely be sufficient to fix the problem on i386,
> while still p
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:32:39AM +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote:
>...
> I know this is not ideal but we can't fix this. If this is a nogo for the
> release than we need to remove the i386 packages, that used the fact, that
> debian buildds for i386 are running on amd64 systems.
No, the fix would be
Hi,
On 02/06/17 at 11:32 +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote:
> Hey,
>
> > During a rebuild of all packages in stretch (in a stretch chroot, not a
> > sid chroot), your package failed to build on i386.
> >
> > Note that the build node has a lot of RAM, so if memory is really
> > exhausted, it could mean
Hey,
> During a rebuild of all packages in stretch (in a stretch chroot, not a
> sid chroot), your package failed to build on i386.
>
> Note that the build node has a lot of RAM, so if memory is really
> exhausted, it could mean that it can no longer be built on i386.
Well the memory consumptio
Source: qtwebengine-opensource-src
Version: 5.7.1+dfsg-6
Severity: serious
Tags: stretch sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20170601-i386 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in stretch on i386
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in stretch (in a stretch chroot, not a
sid chroot),
10 matches
Mail list logo
