Re: On the existance of arm* porters

2022-08-25 Thread Wookey
On 2022-08-25 17:30 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 09:15:07AM -0700, ` Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > >On 2022-08-25, Graham Inggs wrote: > > > >Apparently I am the only porter for armhf and arm64? I had assumed there > >would be someone else to fill the gaps in my skillset,

Re: On the existance of arm* porters

2022-08-25 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 09:15:07AM -0700, ` Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >On 2022-08-25, Graham Inggs wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 13:36, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >> wrote: > >>> it seems superficially plausible that the march=native >>> invocations are just instances of the compiler being

On the existance of arm* porters

2022-08-25 Thread ` Vagrant Cascadian
On 2022-08-25, Graham Inggs wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 13:36, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: >> it seems superficially plausible that the march=native >> invocations are just instances of the compiler being probed. > > I have also had a look and cannot see that '-march=native' is used

Re: Bug#1017537: armel buildd misconfiguration

2022-08-25 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Arnd Bergmann dixit: >Yes, that sounds reasonable in principle. OK, good. I’ll do that then when I’m caught up with dayjob work. >I've tried to come up with a minimal test case like Meh, I’m just going to write a main.s ;-) I like assembly. Also, less surprises there. GCC is… bye, //mirabilos

Re: Bug#1017537: armel buildd misconfiguration

2022-08-25 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 8:03 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Do you think it would be worth compiling a VERY tiny program from > execute_before_dh-auto-build that just runs an swp instruction, and > if that fails, issue a message pointing to your message? I’m doing > something similar for mksh wrt.

Re: Bug#1003165: scikit-learn in unstable FTBFS on arm64, armel, armhf, i386, ppc64el and s390x

2022-08-25 Thread Graham Inggs
Hi Adrian On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 13:36, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 2/16/22 12:33, Christian Kastner wrote: > >> Bus errors are normally easy to spot. Just run the code in question through > >> GDB and see where it crashes. Then look at the backtrace with the debug > >> symbols

Re: Bug#1017961: mozjs102: Fails to build on armel

2022-08-25 Thread Simon McVittie
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1786619 Upstream suggested that I should also turn off the JIT (see patch attached to the upstream bug), but that doesn't seem to have helped with the test failures.

Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel

2022-08-25 Thread Simon McVittie
Package: rele...@debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org, debian-gtk-gn...@lists.debian.org The plan is for Debian 12 to release with GNOME 43, which is currently in beta upstream. Beta versions of