On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:28:09PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 1:16:43 PM CST David Kalnischkies wrote: > > So @googletest maintainers, please state what you can/want to do about > > it or not. Being a build-dependency of apt provides some benefits, > > ... such as ? :-)
Fame and fortune of course! :) Realistically speaking, the biggest real benefit might be that you become a key-package as it is unlikely that apt is dropped from a release and it must be buildable from source. > I do intend to look into the m68k failure, but would really appreciate some > help with it. And with the failure of gtest_catch_exceptions_test -- which > I'd prefer to reinstate once fixed. The context of this bugreport was that apt failed to build from source on some ports which makes porters unhappy, blocks their work and if left unchecked for a while makes it look like nobody (else) cares, so eventually if triggered at the wrong moment it lets them throw a tantrum (don't we all do that some time), which this bugreport is a manifest for asking apt to disable the testsuite (and move to another) on the premise that googletest will never be fixed because 'reasons'. Given that this is proven to be false by now I think we can all move on more or less pretending it never happened – so from my PoV feel free to close the bugreport or take it as m68k port-bug. I think John is actually involved in m68k porting, so he might be able to lend a hand! More than I can at least as I can only provide a pad on the back and a "that sounds strange indeed". Although, exceptions are a tricky beast and "costly", so I see why a compiler would like to optimize them out if given the chance… but that is not really helping. Does upstream know about it? Also, Debian isn't the only distro with ports – we might 'only' be the ones with the most – so in theory others should see such issues, too. Best regards David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
