Does Le 27 mars 2014 15:05, "Mathieu Malaterre" <ma...@debian.org> a écrit : > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> wrote: > > * Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org>, 2014-03-27, 13:06: > > > >> I preferred not to mass bug everyone out there and instead: > >> > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742780 > > > > > > But many packages don't regenerate autofoo at build-time. :-( > > And your point is ? > > It may not impact package built with gcc-4.5, only those that have > been rebuild since gcc-4.6. But anyway the generated code (whether it > is in m4 or in the generated auto* stuff) is bogus since the begining. > > >> LFS is still a release goal, not a requirement. > > > > > > Then "severity: grave" is probably overkill. :-P > > If as an application programmer I cannot get memcpy to copy past the > first 32bits of size_t (x86_64), I would call it a grave issue in > libc. > > Same thing if I use autoconf macro to tell whether or not my system > support LFS, but it keeps on claiming it does not. I personally call > it a grave issue ... right ? > > This is really a regression, package on 32bits arch used to support > LFS, but since gcc 4.6 came it they do not anymore.
Could we detected by checking configure ? We could issue a Lintian tag > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUszd=ux-gm=wje6stgeheztp6zmdb0sz47aas0ncc4l...@mail.gmail.com >