On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:59:45PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I do not know enough about what X resource files are supposed to look
> like to identify this bug for sure. However, I notice that the
> /etc/X11/xdm/Xresources file from Daniel's experimental X4.3.0 debs
> appears to have had all it
Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, it's a problem for programs that use cpp to parse X resource files.
>
> In particular, I noticed that xdm broke due to a mangled
> /etc/X11/xdm/Xresources file when built with cpp 3.3 instead of cpp 3.2.
I do not know enough about what X resource files are supposed t
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Well, if we came upon the problem independently we might have fixed
> it. But I don't know if we did, because I have no idea what the
> problem is. I have a vague memory of some problems with line
> numbering under -traditional, but
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:59:25 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:38:17PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > > My god, that was awful. They still haven't fixed cpp -traditional, as
> > > far as I know. Grumble grumble grumble.
> >
> > Bug number?
>
> Mumble mumble mumbl
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:59:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:15:03 +0200, Bill Allombert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
> > worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
>
> > 1) Do porters
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:38:17PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> > My god, that was awful. They still haven't fixed cpp -traditional, as
> > far as I know. Grumble grumble grumble.
>
> Bug number?
Mumble mumble mumble. Never got around to filing it, figured XFree86
wasn't such obscure code
Hi,
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:09:31 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I see two possibility to implement this proposal:
>
> 1°) Let maintainers run tests in the build or binary target.
> Eventually we add a notest DEBBUILD_OPTION to disable it.
>
> 2°) We add a test target in debian/ru
> My god, that was awful. They still haven't fixed cpp -traditional, as
> far as I know. Grumble grumble grumble.
Bug number?
zw
On 09-Oct-03, 14:48 (CDT), Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GCC may, in fact, be more likely to have optimization bugs than, say,
> the old DEC Fortran compiler.
Looking at the other replies, I see this turns out to be the case, esp.
on non-x86. So apparently it falls into the
> [1]
On 09-Oct-03, 13:00 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:24:43AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > No. While they certainly do exist, >99% of the time, if code works at
> > -O0 but not at -O2, then the code is broken.
>
> I find this difficult to swallow
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:24:43AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Are gcc optimiser bugs really that common?
>
> No. While they certainly do exist, >99% of the time, if code works at
> -O0 but not at -O2, then the code is broken. (Of course, there are
> specific optimization operations that req
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:49:13PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> | My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
> | worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
> |
> | 1) Do porters and autobuil
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:15:03 +0200, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
> worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
> 1) Do porters and autobuilders admins want to be able to skip the
>tests ?
i) This
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
> worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
>
> 1) Do porters and autobuilders admins want to be able to skip the tests ?
As a porter: No. Dear god, n
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:33:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The benefits of not running regression tests at build time (saving a
> considerable amount of time) do, IMO, not outweigh the disadvantages
Reading that, I wonder if we should rethink our build system. Currently on
release we ship
Op do 09-10-2003, om 14:15 schreef Bill Allombert:
> My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
> worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
>
> 1) Do porters and autobuilders admins want to be able to skip the tests ?
Not me. Running regression tests is (very)
On 09-Oct-03, 07:49 (CDT), Cameron Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> | 3) Do we want to allow for autorecovery ? If gcc -O2 leads to a broken
> | binary, why not set up debian/rules to automatically retry with gcc
> | -O0 ?
>
>
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
| My first goal is to persuade developers that running tests is
| worthwhile. For the implentation I have mainly 3 questions:
|
| 1) Do porters and autobuilders admins want to be able to skip the tests ?
Surely skipping the tests on
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 03:39:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:09:31 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Hello Debian policy, Ancient policy [1] frowned upon running
> > automated check of runtime behavior of packages in debian/rules to
> > save time f
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:09:31 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello Debian policy, Ancient policy [1] frowned upon running
> automated check of runtime behavior of packages in debian/rules to
> save time for the autobuilders, and say that such test should be run
> by maintainers m
20 matches
Mail list logo
