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 <o...@debian.org> 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 <jcowg...@debian.org>:
> > 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
>

Reply via email to