Hi Jeremy and Simon!
On 2023-03-15 11:50, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Motivated by this, I've tried to build mozjs78 with GCC 11 instead of
> 12, and it *did* build successfully. My proposal is thus to build
> mozjs78 with GCC 11 on armhf and armel, see attached patch.
I've now discovered that this v
Control: tags -1 + patch
Hi Simon,
On 2023-03-13 04:42, Simon McVittie wrote:
> The other possible route for fixing mozjs78's build on armhf and armel
> is to locate whatever fixes in ICU made it link successfully on armhf
> and armel, and backport those to the version of ICU that is vendored by
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 15:27:19 +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> On 2023-01-27 12:03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > WITH_SYSTEM_ICU = yes fixes this error on armel.
>
> And on armhf too.
>
> > The build fails later due to 146 TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL,
> > which is not a problem for 0ad who aren't running the
On 2023-01-27 12:03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> WITH_SYSTEM_ICU = yes fixes this error on armel.
And on armhf too.
> The build fails later due to 146 TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL,
> which is not a problem for 0ad who aren't running the mozjs testsuite.
Of those 146 test failures, many seem to be discrepancies
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 01:59:34PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Source: mozjs78
> Version: 78.15.0-6
> Severity: serious
> Tags: ftbfs
> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org, c...@packages.debian.org
> User: debia
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:08:22 +, Joshua Peisach wrote:
> CJS ported to mozjs78 in October 2020, and Cinnamon is still finishing their
> 5.6x releases/making cleanups.
>
> Considering upstream uses Ubuntu Jammy, mozjs102 isn’t an option unless they
> are willing to build it for their main d
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 2:08 PM Joshua Peisach
wrote:
> CJS ported to mozjs78 in October 2020, and Cinnamon is still finishing their
> 5.6x releases/making cleanups.
>
> Considering upstream uses Ubuntu Jammy, mozjs102 isn’t an option unless they
> are willing to build it for their main developm
CJS ported to mozjs78 in October 2020, and Cinnamon is still finishing their
5.6x releases/making cleanups.
Considering upstream uses Ubuntu Jammy, mozjs102 isn’t an option unless they
are willing to build it for their main development target. I think Cjs should
rebase for mozjs91,
Especially i
Source: mozjs78
Version: 78.15.0-6
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org, c...@packages.debian.org
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: armel armhf
mozjs78 fails to build on armh
9 matches
Mail list logo
