On 12.09.24 19:56, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 12:19 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Hi Ben,
Dropping leader@ and community@ from Cc as this is a technical
side-track.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:38:24AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 02:13 +0200, Ben Hutchings wr
On 12.09.24 11:58, stefa...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Ben (2024.09.11_22:38:24_+)
While potential solutions to this bug are being discussed, would you
please consider removing the Provides from linux-libc-dev?
I am open to doing so.
[...]
I raised this at today's team meeting and it was agree
Package: linux-libc-dev
Version: 6.10.9-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid trixie
linux-libc-dev started shipping header files not needed for 99% of it's
users. The default usage of linux-libc-dev is the availability of the
user facing header files for native builds. These make up likely 99% or
On 21.03.24 07:58, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:59:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Independent of any technical issues, this is a hijacking of a package name.
Please revert that change.
Okay. Please prepare to take over linux-libc-dev alltogether then,
there can be only
Control: reopen -1
On 20.03.24 21:48, Bastian Blank wrote:
Hi
Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last
weeks. I'm therefor closing this bug report.
Bastian,
sorry for being quiet in the time of the time_t64 transitions.
I am re-opening, and CCing lea...@debian
Control: tags -1 - patch
The headers have to be provided in the /usr//include location.
Currently, that is not possible, because linux-libc-dev provides the
linux-libc-dev-cross-* packages, without providing these headers in the
old locations.
The assumption to include the headers for the ta
Package: linux-libc-dev
Version: 6.7.7-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it
doesn't do that completely
Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64-cross (= 6.7.7-1), ...
However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing.
Ple
Package: src:linux
Version: 6.3.7-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
seen on amd64, the issue doesn't look related to gcc-12.
see
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/l/linux/35917919/log.gz
[...]
56sgcc-12
-Wp,-MMD,/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.f52ni744/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/fo
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.19.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
linux autopkg tests fail with stderr output, blocking gcc-11
[...]
E: Unexpected warning/error messages
autopkgtest [14:13:45]: summary
selftestsSKIP Test restriction "isolation-machine" re
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.18.2-1
Severity: minor
Tags: sid bookworm
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-lto
This package currently fails to build (at least on the amd64
architecture) with link time optimizations enabled. For a background
for LTO please see
https://wiki.debian.o
On 7/8/20 9:21 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Note, this e-mail may look familiar as it is mostly copied over from
> the buster call, not much has changed, AFAICT].
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we
> request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and th
Package: src:nfs-utils
Version: 1:1.3.4-2.5
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other packag
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.4.19-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or c
Package: src:klibc
Version: 2.0.7-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or cl
Package: src:linux
Severity: important
Tags: sid bullseye patch
linux 5.3 breaks building glibc for riscv64, discussion and patch at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cross-toolchain-base-ports/+bug/1843458
On 23.08.19 17:41, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We now have a version of linux (5.2.9-2) that builds on all release
> architectures and doesn't seem to cause build regressions for other
> packages. I think that this should migrate to testing soon, as the
> version in testing is missing important securit
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.19.28-2
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-9
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or c
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.15.17-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-8
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or clo
Package: nfs-utils
Version: 1:1.3.4-2.1
User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: py2-removal
the changelog reads:
- nfs-common: Add Recommends python for mountstats and nfsiostat
Please convert these scripts to python3, and recommend Python3 instead.
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.9.2-2
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-7
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or clone
On 27.11.2016 19:27, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 18:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 27.11.2016 16:51, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-27 13:39 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>>> Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
>>>> Con
On 27.11.2016 16:51, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 13:39 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
>> Control: severity -1 important
>>
>> On 27.11.2016 08:38, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.27.51.2016
Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
Control: severity -1 important
On 27.11.2016 08:38, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.27.51.20161124-1
> Control: retitle -1 binutils: creates unbootable kernel on x86-64
> Control: severity -1 grave
>
> On 2016-11-26 15:13 +0100, Damien Wyart
Package: linux
Version: 4.7.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-5, gcc-5-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++, or
w
Package: linux
Version: 4.4.6-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.9, gcc-4.9-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
that should be fixed on the kernel side by removing this code. there never was a
powerpcle userland support. If this is not possible in the short term, then we
can re-enable this for unstable for some time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
Am 17.10.2014 um 19:44 schrieb Steve Cotton:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:25:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: src:gcc-4.8
>> Version: 4.8.3-11
>> Severity: serious
>> Tags: sid jessie
>>
>> The current default for GCC (4.9) is good enough for jes
Am 12.08.2014 um 18:05 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Control: reassign -1 gcc-4.9,nfs-kernel-server
> Control: found -1 nfs-kernel-server/1.2.8-8
> Control: found -1 gcc-4.9/4.9.1
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>> amd64. I think it affects all architectures. In c
Package: linux
Version: 3.14.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.7, gcc-4.7-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
Package: linux
Version: 3.14.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.6, gcc-4.6-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
Package: linux
Severity: wishlist
Please enable support for the x32 syscalls, so that it becomes possible to run a
x32 chroot on such a kernel.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archiv
Package: src:linux-tools
Version: 3.2.17-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-glibc-2.17
The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with
eglibc-2.17, but succeeds to build with eglibc-2.13. The
severity of this report may be
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 3.1.6-1
Severity: important
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.4
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++, or
with gcc-4.6/g++-4.6.
Plea
On 12/30/2011 11:23 PM, Jakub Adam wrote:
>> on which platforms? i.e. are the "architecture templates" updated to build on
>> more than amd64 and i386?
>
> There are arm, ia64, mips, ppc and sparc in the additional architectures - see
> contents of
> debian/eclipse-build-additionalArchs.tar.bz2.
>
On 11/20/2011 01:08 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 22:42:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
>> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
>> and now require a minimum of a 4
On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increase the minimum requi
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-20
Severity: normal
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.3
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++.
Please keep this report open u
Package: linux-image-2.6.26-1-parisc64
Version: 2.6.26-6
Severity: serious
the lenny installer does work, the kernel installed by the installer
fails to boot. The etch kernel does boot.
Command line for kernel: 'root=/dev/sda3 HOME=/ console=ttyS0 TERM=vt102
palo_kernel=2/vmlinux'
Selected kerne
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: important
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.1
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++.
Please keep this report open until the package uses the
Jörg Sommer writes:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if you are aware of this fact. Compiling the kernel release
> 2.6.24 on PowerPC with gcc-4.3 fails.
>
> LD [M] lib/zlib_inflate/zlib_inflate.o
> GEN .version
> CHK include/linux/compile.h
> UPD include/linux/compile.h
> CC ini
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please could the
> > kernel team first check the possibility of such an kernel?
>
> | linux-image-2.6.18-5-amd64 | 2.6.18.dfsg.1-13 |
The i386 biarch toolchain is built as biarch toolchain; the value of
this is currently doubtful, because you only can use it in an i386
chroot on a machine running a 64bit kernel in the host system. With
newer compiler versions apparently more hacks are needed to even build
the biarch GCC, it curr
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061012 12:41]:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > > Two big issues are still open:
> > > > - hppa FTBFS
> > > > - alpha gcc-4.
linux-2.6 build-depends on gcc-4.0 [alpha], will this b-d be dropped
for etch?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Will gcc-4.0 be dropped as a build dependency for etch, or be kept?
And on which architectures?
Would you mind dropping gcc-4.0 from etch for some architectures?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > A few weeks ago, the 2.4 kernels have been declared "deprecated" [1]. I
> > would like to know what does this exactly mean:
> > - That users are advised not to use them?
> > - That we could drop support
severity 322723 important
thanks
there's a workaround, and gcc-3.4 is known to work as well. Is there
any reason to use gcc-4.0 for kernel builds on all architectures?
Frans Pop writes:
> I've reassigned this bug from the kernel to gcc-4.0 as we feel that the
> solution chosen in the kernel pac
Junichi Uekawa writes:
> Hi,
>
> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > It will be 2.6.8.
> >
> > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
> > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >
> > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
> > > > kernels
> > > > in sarge. The stronges
50 matches
Mail list logo
