Hi Rob,
On Sat 11 Feb 2012 04:39, Rob Browning writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Rob Browning writes:
>
>>> So do I understand correctly that in order for this to work, we'll first
>>> need an updated libgc in Debian unstable?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Great. If we can get this and the s390 problem fix
Rob Browning writes:
> Though if it wasn't too difficult to come up with a reasonable patch,
> we could ask the Debian libgc maintainer to apply it to the older
> version.
I don't yet know if there is such a patch. I can imagine a procedure
for trying to find it: first git bisect to find the ol
Neil Jerram writes:
> It turns out that no Guile fixes are needed after all. So as far as
> Guile on armel is concerned, we only need a new libgc release.
OK, that sounds good; by default, I think I'll wait for that. Though if
it wasn't too difficult to come up with a reasonable patch, we coul
Neil Jerram writes:
> First of all, thanks for pushing 2.0.5 into Debian so quickly!
After a decent bit of work last year, I integrated my Debian development
directly into the Guile git tree (including much of the older history).
That, the fact that I don't have to split 2.0, and git-dpm/git-dch
Neil Jerram writes:
> On the assumption of using recent libgc git source, I'm still working on
> what Guile fixes, if any, are needed on top of that, for armel. I have
> a set of fixes that works, but it may not be a minimal set.
It turns out that no Guile fixes are needed after all. So as far
Hi Rob,
First of all, thanks for pushing 2.0.5 into Debian so quickly!
Rob Browning writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Rob Browning writes:
>
>>> So do I understand correctly that in order for this to work, we'll first
>>> need an updated libgc in Debian unstable?
>>
>> Yes.
It appears to me
Neil Jerram writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>> So do I understand correctly that in order for this to work, we'll first
>> need an updated libgc in Debian unstable?
>
> Yes.
Great. If we can get this and the s390 problem fixed, I'll be able to
see about removing 1.8 from Debian testing (which
Rob Browning writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> So, just to be clear, the sequence of events for libgc is
>>
>> - start from 9448012a
>> - apply 0001-Debian-7.1-8.patch
>> - apply 0001-Tweaks-for-successful-dpkg-buildpackage-using-libgc-.patch
>
> So do I understand correctly that in order for t
Neil Jerram writes:
> So, just to be clear, the sequence of events for libgc is
>
> - start from 9448012a
> - apply 0001-Debian-7.1-8.patch
> - apply 0001-Tweaks-for-successful-dpkg-buildpackage-using-libgc-.patch
So do I understand correctly that in order for this to work, we'll first
need an u
Neil Jerram writes:
> I'm afraid I can't help in detail with those other ones, as I don't have
> those systems.
I should note that if anyone does come up with ideas or patches that
they'd like to try, I can test them.
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2002-
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sat 24 Dec 2011 13:50, Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Just in case anyone else is looking at this too, I just wanted to
>> announce that I'm investigating why the Debian Guile 2.0.3 fails to pass
>> 'make check' on ARM
>
> How's it going? :-)
If I recall correctly, there are a
On Sat 24 Dec 2011 13:50, Neil Jerram writes:
> Just in case anyone else is looking at this too, I just wanted to
> announce that I'm investigating why the Debian Guile 2.0.3 fails to pass
> 'make check' on ARM
How's it going? :-)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi there!
Just in case anyone else is looking at this too, I just wanted to
announce that I'm investigating why the Debian Guile 2.0.3 fails to pass
'make check' on ARM, as can be seen here:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-2.0. Now that
there's a Debian package for Guile 2.0
13 matches
Mail list logo
