Processed: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > fixed 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow Bug marked as fixed in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
fixed 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 thanks Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:54:07PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > reassign 428582 binutils > > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow > > Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `binutils'. > > > > > notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 > > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow > > Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1. > > Maybe you wanted to mark it fixed instead of removing a "found"? Indeed. I got confused because the bugs.d.o reference card doesn't mention fixed as a valid command. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:54:07PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > reassign 428582 binutils > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow > Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `binutils'. > > > notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow > Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1. Maybe you wanted to mark it fixed instead of removing a "found"? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 428582 binutils Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `binutils'. > notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
reassign 428582 binutils notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 thanks Mike Hommey wrote: [snip] > > > It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot > > > with xulrunner. > > > > A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that > > information. > > So, could it be possible to reassign this bug to the proper package > (gcc ? binutils ?) and mark it fixed for the appropriate version ? > > Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:13:46AM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +, brian m. carlson <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [CC'd to debian-mips.] > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did someone check already ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to > > > > > > debian-mips? > > > > > > > > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build > > > > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. > > > > > > > > Is there any news on this? gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips), > > > > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems: > > > > #441633). > > > > > > > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or > > > > gcc-snapshot and report back? > > > > > > FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that > > > xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is, > > > xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems. > > > > It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot > > with xulrunner. > > A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that > information. So, could it be possible to reassign this bug to the proper package (gcc ? binutils ?) and mark it fixed for the appropriate version ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +, brian m. carlson <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [CC'd to debian-mips.] > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > Did someone check already ? > > > > > > > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? > > > > > > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build > > > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. > > > > > > Is there any news on this? gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips), > > > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems: > > > #441633). > > > > > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or > > > gcc-snapshot and report back? > > > > FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that > > xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is, > > xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems. > > It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot > with xulrunner. A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that information. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +, brian m. carlson <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [CC'd to debian-mips.] > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > > Did someone check already ? > > > > > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? > > > > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build > > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. > > > > Is there any news on this? gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips), > > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems: > > #441633). > > > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or > > gcc-snapshot and report back? > > FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that > xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is, > xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems. It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot with xulrunner. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +, brian m. carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [CC'd to debian-mips.] > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > Did someone check already ? > > > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? > > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. > > Is there any news on this? gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips), > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems: > #441633). > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or > gcc-snapshot and report back? FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is, xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
[CC'd to debian-mips.] On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > Did someone check already ? > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. Is there any news on this? gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips), and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems: #441633). Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or gcc-snapshot and report back? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > Did someone check already ? > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > miss another backport from the trunk. > Did someone check already ? Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > miss another backport from the trunk. Did someone check already ? > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > for the faster architectures. Can it be built with the new dependencies ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:56:26PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner > > upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive > > anyways... > > I very much doubt that for subsubminor version changes. And there's > still the possibility to make these packages architecture dependent. Which packages ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Mike Hommey writes: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:21:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Mike Hommey writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mike Hommey writes: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > > > > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as > > > > > > #385793, > > > > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > > > > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if > > > > > > the > > > > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still > > > > > > don't > > > > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the > > > > > > strict > > > > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, > > > > > > even > > > > > > for the faster architectures. > > > > > > > > > > What part of > > > > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), > > > > > libnss3-dev, > > > > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner > > > > > > > > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? > > > > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) > > > > > > > > please check the build logs at > > > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot > > > > > > All I see is: > > > gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be > > > installed > > > libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going > > > to be installed > > > libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be > > > installed > > > Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to > > > be installed > > > Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed > > > > > > And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of > > > any trouble. See > > > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d > > > > Package: libxul0d > > Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~) > > Why didn't you tell straight that it was libxul0d dependencies that were > the problem ? And more importantly, why didn't you file a bug report, > since you seem so bothered ? I did, but you did "solve" it by working around it, pointing out that slow architectures are the problem but not xulrunner. Look back at the report. > Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner > upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive > anyways... I very much doubt that for subsubminor version changes. And there's still the possibility to make these packages architecture dependent. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-13 20:46]: > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > miss another backport from the trunk. > FWIW, xulrunner currently doesn't build with gcc-snapshot. I have not > investigated whether this is a bug in the compiler or xulrunner. The > error I see (on amd64) is: > gcc -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wno-long-long -Wall > -pipe -pthread -pipe -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -o js > js.o -Wl,--as-needed-lm -ldl -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib -ldl -lm > -L. -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread > -ldl -lreadline > js.o: In function `GetLine': > /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:149: undefined reference to > `readline' > /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:153: undefined reference to > `add_history' > /usr/bin/ld: js: hidden symbol `readline' isn't defined > /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output > Does #428582 only occur on mips? If so, I can try to build xulrunner > with gcc-snapshot on mips. But I believe the failure I mention above > happens before the failure in #428582, so I'm not sure building it on > mips will show anything useful. The bug does not happen on alpha, amd64, hppa, ia64, powerpc, s390, or sparc. arm built the most recent version of xulrunner with gcc-4.1 4.1.2-8, so it's unknown whether it's affected. m68k fails when building with gcc-4.1 4.1.2-12 with the error you listed above. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-13 20:46]: > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > miss another backport from the trunk. FWIW, xulrunner currently doesn't build with gcc-snapshot. I have not investigated whether this is a bug in the compiler or xulrunner. The error I see (on amd64) is: gcc -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wno-long-long -Wall -pipe -pthread -pipe -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -o js js.o -Wl,--as-needed-lm -ldl -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib -ldl -lm -L. -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -lreadline js.o: In function `GetLine': /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:149: undefined reference to `readline' /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:153: undefined reference to `add_history' /usr/bin/ld: js: hidden symbol `readline' isn't defined /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output Does #428582 only occur on mips? If so, I can try to build xulrunner with gcc-snapshot on mips. But I believe the failure I mention above happens before the failure in #428582, so I'm not sure building it on mips will show anything useful. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:21:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mike Hommey writes: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > > > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > > > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > > > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > > > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > > > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the > > > > > strict > > > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > > > > > for the faster architectures. > > > > > > > > What part of > > > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev, > > > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner > > > > > > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? > > > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) > > > > > > please check the build logs at > > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot > > > > All I see is: > > gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be > > installed > > libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to > > be installed > > libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be > > installed > > Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be > > installed > > Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed > > > > And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of > > any trouble. See > > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d > > Package: libxul0d > Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~) Why didn't you tell straight that it was libxul0d dependencies that were the problem ? And more importantly, why didn't you file a bug report, since you seem so bothered ? Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive anyways... Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Mike Hommey writes: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Mike Hommey writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict > > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > > > > for the faster architectures. > > > > > > What part of > > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev, > > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner > > > > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? > > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) > > > > please check the build logs at > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot > > All I see is: > gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be > installed > libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be > installed > libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be > installed > Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be > installed > Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed > > And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of > any trouble. See > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d Package: libxul0d Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > > > for the faster architectures. > > > > What part of > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev, > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner > > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) > > please check the build logs at > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot All I see is: gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be installed libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be installed libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of any trouble. See http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > miss another backport from the trunk. > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > for the faster architectures. What part of Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev, libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Mike Hommey writes: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may > > miss another backport from the trunk. > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even > > for the faster architectures. > > What part of > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev, > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ? > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all) please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613
Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may miss another backport from the trunk. Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793, "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers. Please build the package manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch. I still don't understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even for the faster architectures. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
