Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 unblock: clang/1:3.0-6.1
Bug #699899 [release.debian.org] tpu: clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: clang/1:3.0-6.1' from 'tpu: clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0'
--
699899: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699899
Debian Bug Tracking Sy
Control: retitle -1 unblock: clang/1:3.0-6.1
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 16:46 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> > Given that 3.1 appears never to have managed to build on several
> > architectures in unstable (a regression in each case) and that I assume
> > the intention
Hi Adam,
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> Hmm, presumably it worked at some point, given there are armhf binaries
> in unstable. :-(
Ack. My guess is that it worked with gcc 4.6.
> Given that 3.1 appears never to have managed to build on several
> architectures in unstable (a regression in each case)
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:29 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 02/07/13 18:07, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
>> Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
Hmm, presumably it worked at some point, given there are armhf binaries
in unstable. :-(
> > Given that the 3.0 version w
Le 02/07/13 18:07, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
> Hi Adam,
>
> Michael Stapelberg writes:
>> Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day.
> Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
>
> I have no clue on how to fix this and can’t spend much more tim
Hi Adam,
Michael Stapelberg writes:
> Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day.
Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
I have no clue on how to fix this and can’t spend much more time on
debugging this either.
Given that the 3.0 version wor
Le 02/07/13 13:15, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
> Hi Adam,
>
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
>> Looking at the proposed tpu diff and the 3.0 -> 3.1 diff, it looks like
>> the armhf changes should apply "as is" to 3.1; has anyone tried that?
> I have ported the patches from 3.0 to 3.1 and successfully
Hi Adam,
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> I wasn't particularly suggesting re-introducing 3.0 to unstable.
> However, given that packages from tpu get essentially no testing at all
> (no pun intended) before hitting testing, being able to prove a patch in
> unstable first avoids a number of (admittedl
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 22:28 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> > What's the status of getting this fixed in unstable, as already
> > requested by Julien in #693208?
> Why is it necessary to fix this in unstable? This’d require introducing
> an epoch. Let me know if you
Hi Adam,
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> What's the status of getting this fixed in unstable, as already
> requested by Julien in #693208?
Why is it necessary to fix this in unstable? This’d require introducing
an epoch. Let me know if you insist on it, but I don’t understand why
this is important.
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #699899 [release.debian.org] tpu: clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
699899: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699899
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 14:27 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> I would like to upload clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0 to testing-proposed-updates
> to fix #693208 in wheezy. At the moment, 3.0-6 is in testing, 3.1-8 is
> in unstable.
What's the status of getting this fixed in uns
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: tpu
Hello,
I would like to upload clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0 to testing-proposed-updates
to fix #693208 in wheezy. At the moment, 3.0-6 is in testing, 3.1-8 is
in unstable.
#693208 is about clang failin
13 matches
Mail list logo
