Hi! The ENOTEMPTY error fix is correct. I've known about it and upstream mariadb will provide a fix for it. I'll have to analyse the other patch in more detail as I'm not familiar with that particular piece of code. I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to look at it. Probably next week.
Vicentiu On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 at 11:49 Otto Kekäläinen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello! > > Thanks for reporting. I've CC'd Vicențiu Ciorbaru, a MariaDB core > developer, who hopefully can review this. > > > 2016-09-22 12:42 GMT+03:00 James Cowgill <[email protected]>: > > Source: mariadb-10.0 > > Version: 10.0.27-1 > > Severity: important > > Tags: patch > > > > Hi, > > > > Currently mariadb-10.0 FTBFS on mips64el due to various testsuite > > failures. The two attached patches should resolve this. I am also > > looking at the failures on mips and mipsel, but haven't finished fixing > > those yet. > > > > mips-errno-enotempty.patch > > On mips* architectures, ENOTEMPTY == 93 which wasn't handled by two test > > cases. > > > > mips64-taocrypt-integer.patch > > The previous patch to fix mips64el made the package build, but was > > unfortunately completely wrong. I've replaced the code with a generic > > implementation using GCC's __int128. It could probably be generalized to > > other arches, but I didn't want to break anything. > > > > Thanks, > > James > > > > -- > Otto Kekäläinen > https://keybase.io/ottok > Seravo Oy and MariaDB Foundation >
