Package: src:linux
Version: 6.3.7-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
seen on amd64, the issue doesn't look related to gcc-12.
see
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/l/linux/35917919/log.gz
[...]
56sgcc-12
-Wp,-MMD,/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.f52ni744/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/fo
Package: nfs-utils
Version: 1:1.3.4-2.1
User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: py2-removal
the changelog reads:
- nfs-common: Add Recommends python for mountstats and nfsiostat
Please convert these scripts to python3, and recommend Python3 instead.
that should be fixed on the kernel side by removing this code. there never was a
powerpcle userland support. If this is not possible in the short term, then we
can re-enable this for unstable for some time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.9.2-2
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-7
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or clone
Package: linux
Version: 4.7.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-5, gcc-5-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++, or
w
Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
Control: severity -1 important
On 27.11.2016 08:38, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.27.51.20161124-1
> Control: retitle -1 binutils: creates unbootable kernel on x86-64
> Control: severity -1 grave
>
> On 2016-11-26 15:13 +0100, Damien Wyart
On 27.11.2016 16:51, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 13:39 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
>> Control: severity -1 important
>>
>> On 27.11.2016 08:38, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.27.51.2016
On 27.11.2016 19:27, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 18:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 27.11.2016 16:51, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-27 13:39 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>>> Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
>>>> Con
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > A few weeks ago, the 2.4 kernels have been declared "deprecated" [1]. I
> > would like to know what does this exactly mean:
> > - That users are advised not to use them?
> > - That we could drop support
severity 322723 important
thanks
there's a workaround, and gcc-3.4 is known to work as well. Is there
any reason to use gcc-4.0 for kernel builds on all architectures?
Frans Pop writes:
> I've reassigned this bug from the kernel to gcc-4.0 as we feel that the
> solution chosen in the kernel pac
Package: linux-image-2.6.26-1-parisc64
Version: 2.6.26-6
Severity: serious
the lenny installer does work, the kernel installed by the installer
fails to boot. The etch kernel does boot.
Command line for kernel: 'root=/dev/sda3 HOME=/ console=ttyS0 TERM=vt102
palo_kernel=2/vmlinux'
Selected kerne
The i386 biarch toolchain is built as biarch toolchain; the value of
this is currently doubtful, because you only can use it in an i386
chroot on a machine running a 64bit kernel in the host system. With
newer compiler versions apparently more hacks are needed to even build
the biarch GCC, it curr
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please could the
> > kernel team first check the possibility of such an kernel?
>
> | linux-image-2.6.18-5-amd64 | 2.6.18.dfsg.1-13 |
Will gcc-4.0 be dropped as a build dependency for etch, or be kept?
And on which architectures?
Would you mind dropping gcc-4.0 from etch for some architectures?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
linux-2.6 build-depends on gcc-4.0 [alpha], will this b-d be dropped
for etch?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061012 12:41]:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > > Two big issues are still open:
> > > > - hppa FTBFS
> > > > - alpha gcc-4.
Jörg Sommer writes:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if you are aware of this fact. Compiling the kernel release
> 2.6.24 on PowerPC with gcc-4.3 fails.
>
> LD [M] lib/zlib_inflate/zlib_inflate.o
> GEN .version
> CHK include/linux/compile.h
> UPD include/linux/compile.h
> CC ini
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: important
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.1
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++.
Please keep this report open until the package uses the
Junichi Uekawa writes:
> Hi,
>
> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.15.17-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-8
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or clo
Package: linux-libc-dev
Version: 6.7.7-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it
doesn't do that completely
Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64-cross (= 6.7.7-1), ...
However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing.
Ple
Control: tags -1 - patch
The headers have to be provided in the /usr//include location.
Currently, that is not possible, because linux-libc-dev provides the
linux-libc-dev-cross-* packages, without providing these headers in the
old locations.
The assumption to include the headers for the ta
Control: reopen -1
On 20.03.24 21:48, Bastian Blank wrote:
Hi
Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last
weeks. I'm therefor closing this bug report.
Bastian,
sorry for being quiet in the time of the time_t64 transitions.
I am re-opening, and CCing lea...@debian
On 21.03.24 07:58, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:59:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Independent of any technical issues, this is a hijacking of a package name.
Please revert that change.
Okay. Please prepare to take over linux-libc-dev alltogether then,
there can be only
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.18.2-1
Severity: minor
Tags: sid bookworm
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-lto
This package currently fails to build (at least on the amd64
architecture) with link time optimizations enabled. For a background
for LTO please see
https://wiki.debian.o
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.19.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
linux autopkg tests fail with stderr output, blocking gcc-11
[...]
E: Unexpected warning/error messages
autopkgtest [14:13:45]: summary
selftestsSKIP Test restriction "isolation-machine" re
Package: linux-libc-dev
Version: 6.10.9-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid trixie
linux-libc-dev started shipping header files not needed for 99% of it's
users. The default usage of linux-libc-dev is the availability of the
user facing header files for native builds. These make up likely 99% or
On 12.09.24 11:58, stefa...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Ben (2024.09.11_22:38:24_+)
While potential solutions to this bug are being discussed, would you
please consider removing the Provides from linux-libc-dev?
I am open to doing so.
[...]
I raised this at today's team meeting and it was agree
On 12.09.24 19:56, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 12:19 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Hi Ben,
Dropping leader@ and community@ from Cc as this is a technical
side-track.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:38:24AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 02:13 +0200, Ben Hutchings wr
Am 17.10.2014 um 19:44 schrieb Steve Cotton:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:25:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: src:gcc-4.8
>> Version: 4.8.3-11
>> Severity: serious
>> Tags: sid jessie
>>
>> The current default for GCC (4.9) is good enough for jes
On 7/8/20 9:21 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Note, this e-mail may look familiar as it is mostly copied over from
> the buster call, not much has changed, AFAICT].
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we
> request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and th
Package: linux
Version: 3.14.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.6, gcc-4.6-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
Package: linux
Version: 3.14.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.7, gcc-4.7-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
Am 12.08.2014 um 18:05 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Control: reassign -1 gcc-4.9,nfs-kernel-server
> Control: found -1 nfs-kernel-server/1.2.8-8
> Control: found -1 gcc-4.9/4.9.1
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>> amd64. I think it affects all architectures. In c
On 23.08.19 17:41, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We now have a version of linux (5.2.9-2) that builds on all release
> architectures and doesn't seem to cause build regressions for other
> packages. I think that this should migrate to testing soon, as the
> version in testing is missing important securit
Package: src:linux
Severity: important
Tags: sid bullseye patch
linux 5.3 breaks building glibc for riscv64, discussion and patch at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cross-toolchain-base-ports/+bug/1843458
Package: src:linux
Version: 4.19.28-2
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-9
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or c
Package: src:klibc
Version: 2.0.7-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or cl
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.4.19-1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other package (or c
Package: src:nfs-utils
Version: 1:1.3.4-2.5
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-10
Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it
was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please
file a bug for the other packag
Package: linux
Version: 4.4.6-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.9, gcc-4.9-legacy
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++,
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >
> > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
> > > > kernels
> > > > in sarge. The stronges
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > It will be 2.6.8.
> >
> > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
> > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-20
Severity: normal
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.3
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++.
Please keep this report open u
On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increase the minimum requi
On 11/20/2011 01:08 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 22:42:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
>> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
>> and now require a minimum of a 4
On 12/30/2011 11:23 PM, Jakub Adam wrote:
>> on which platforms? i.e. are the "architecture templates" updated to build on
>> more than amd64 and i386?
>
> There are arm, ia64, mips, ppc and sparc in the additional architectures - see
> contents of
> debian/eclipse-build-additionalArchs.tar.bz2.
>
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 3.1.6-1
Severity: important
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: non-standard-compiler, gcc-4.4
This package builds with a non standard compiler version; please check
if this package can be built with the default version of gcc/g++, or
with gcc-4.6/g++-4.6.
Plea
Package: src:linux-tools
Version: 3.2.17-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-glibc-2.17
The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with
eglibc-2.17, but succeeds to build with eglibc-2.13. The
severity of this report may be
Package: linux
Severity: wishlist
Please enable support for the x32 syscalls, so that it becomes possible to run a
x32 chroot on such a kernel.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archiv
50 matches
Mail list logo
