Re: HPPA and Erlang packages

2010-02-23 Thread Marc Brockschmidt
"Carlos O'Donell" writes: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Sergei Golovan wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM,   wrote: >>> Yes, the binary removal is the best option, if the porters are not able >>> to fix this arch-specific problem. I would like to avoid this at all >>> costs, but it mi

Re: HPPA and Erlang packages

2010-02-23 Thread Carlos O'Donell
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Sergei Golovan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM,   wrote: >> >> Yes, the binary removal is the best option, if the porters are not able >> to fix this arch-specific problem. I would like to avoid this at all >> costs, but it might be the only available solu

Re: HPPA and Erlang packages

2010-02-22 Thread Sergei Golovan
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM, wrote: > > Yes, the binary removal is the best option, if the porters are not able > to fix this arch-specific problem. I would like to avoid this at all > costs, but it might be the only available solution. I have added a workaround which disables using vfork()

Re: HPPA and Erlang packages

2010-02-22 Thread Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Sergei Golovan writes: > I'd like to ask you about what to do with Erlang and its reverse > dependencies on hppa architecture. The problem is that there's a bug > with fork()+exec() which makes erlang FTBFS (and the currently built > packages are broken as well) on hppa (see [1], [2]). It seems to

HPPA and Erlang packages

2010-02-19 Thread Sergei Golovan
Hi release managers! I'd like to ask you about what to do with Erlang and its reverse dependencies on hppa architecture. The problem is that there's a bug with fork()+exec() which makes erlang FTBFS (and the currently built packages are broken as well) on hppa (see [1], [2]). It seems to be very c