Bug#925818: rocksdb: ftbfs with GCC-9
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 1:00 PM Paul Gevers wrote: > On 07-12-2020 08:11, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > > Yeah, it's a bit confusing why someone tagged this as affecting > > experimental. > > That's because you fixed this bug in experimental. So the BTS apparently > that's part of where the bug is relevant. The version in experimental is > marked as fixed, so everything's fine. Ah, got where the misunderstanding is between us. I talk about #975848 [1] while you are not. > > I could _not_ confirm that the FTBFS happens there. > > Neither did the person that set that tag. Otherwise he would have also > used "reopen" too. Take a look at the top right version plot in the BTS. As noted, there are two GCC FTBFS bugs and the latter set as affecting experimental for no known reason. Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] https://bugs.debian.org/975848
Bug#925818: rocksdb: ftbfs with GCC-9
Hi László, On 07-12-2020 08:11, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > Yeah, it's a bit confusing why someone tagged this as affecting > experimental. That's because you fixed this bug in experimental. So the BTS apparently that's part of where the bug is relevant. The version in experimental is marked as fixed, so everything's fine. > I could _not_ confirm that the FTBFS happens there. Neither did the person that set that tag. Otherwise he would have also used "reopen" too. Take a look at the top right version plot in the BTS. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#925818: rocksdb: ftbfs with GCC-9
Hi Paul, On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:27 PM Paul Gevers wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:47:52 + Matthias Klose wrote: > > The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with > > gcc-9/g++-9, but succeeds to build with gcc-8/g++-8. The > > severity of this report will be raised before the bullseye release, > > so nothing has to be done for the buster release. > > Do you intend to fix this soon in unstable too? The freeze of bullseye > is near and we'd want to have this bug fixed. Yeah, it's a bit confusing why someone tagged this as affecting experimental. I could _not_ confirm that the FTBFS happens there. Currently this goes in three paths. Try to find a patch for the Sid version of RocksDB, file a transition request for the experimental version (this would be the best ATM). Then I've patched and packaged the new upstream version, but as it switches to CMake build system it needs more testing. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Bug#925818: rocksdb: ftbfs with GCC-9
Dear Laszlo, On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:47:52 + Matthias Klose wrote: > The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with > gcc-9/g++-9, but succeeds to build with gcc-8/g++-8. The > severity of this report will be raised before the bullseye release, > so nothing has to be done for the buster release. Do you intend to fix this soon in unstable too? The freeze of bullseye is near and we'd want to have this bug fixed. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
