Your message dated Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:35:21 +0100
with message-id <zfcbyvl3kgird...@msg.df7cb.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#1065000: pgpool2: the package fails to build on armhf
due to gcc-13 13.2.0-16.1 changes
has caused the Debian Bug report #1065000,
regarding pgpool2: the package fails to build on armhf due to gcc-13
13.2.0-16.1 changes
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1065000: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065000
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: pgpool2
Version: 4.3.7-1
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainer,
armhf has -Werror=implicit-function-declaration enabled in default gcc flags of
gcc-13 13.2.0-16.1.
pgpool2 has a number of implicit function declarations causing the build
failure[1]
[1] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/716403848/buildlog_ubuntu-noble-
armhf.pgpool2_4.3.7-1ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
APT prefers mantic-updates
APT policy: (500, 'mantic-updates'), (500, 'mantic-security'), (500,
'mantic'), (100, 'mantic-backports')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 6.5.0-21-generic (SMP w/32 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 4.3.7-2
Re: To Vladimir Petko
> Re: Vladimir Petko
> > armhf has -Werror=implicit-function-declaration enabled in default gcc
> > flags of
> > gcc-13 13.2.0-16.1.
>
> Huh, why only on armhf? That makes debugging this a bit hard.
>
> > Would it be possible to consider a merge request[1] that addresses this
> > issue?
>
> I'm looking now.
This was fixed in the last upload, but didn't make it into the
changelog.
Thanks,
Christoph
--- End Message ---
