Greetings, and thank you so much for looking into this! OK, I found a genuine problem which I've corrected in the latest upload (which became apparent when mips and mipsel failed in exactly the same placeO), and now we're still back at a mipsel pass and a mips failure. Would you mind veryifying that this is not due to some physical problem on the mips buildd? (Or perhaps indicate that I might be granted an exception to the prohibition on casals for doing by hand builds? Is there any other developer machine for this purpose?)
Take care, and thanks! > Camm Maguire wrote: > > Greetings, and thank you so much for looking into this! > > > > I see how the host matching failed, but both config files use native > > object relocation to my understanding. > > It was just a theory to explain a succeeding mipsel build despite the > broken source in -40. Probably mipsel had already picked up -41 in the > meanwhile. > > > Also, the last patch I believe > > should already be applied into the -41 package which failed. Can I > > take from your remarks that you've seen a successful build on a mips > > (as opposed to mipsel) machine? If so, then the hypothesis might go > > back to a physical, hopefully transient, problem on the mips buildd? > > It was a successful build of -40 on a mips machine. > > > I have a small fix to make for ia64 too. If there is no known source > > problem for mips then I'll upload right after addressing this. Your > > advice most appreciated! > > I still recommend to use the standard match patterns in the configure.in > file (and to do the mipsel check before the mips one). > > > Thiemo > > > > -- Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
