A relevant upstream discussion[*] seems to suggest that we should be using
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf and not armv7-*
I think this results in armv6, which sounds preferable to armv7+neon, and I
don't think will cause any other issues (Steve?). Other options include
creating a new combination of "
Steve McIntyre:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Package: rustc
>> Version: 1.10.0+dfsg1-2
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Dear Maintainer,
>>
>> armhf currently fails to build on buildds but does build successfully on
>> porterbox harris.debian.org
>>
>> This is because ru
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
>Package: rustc
>Version: 1.10.0+dfsg1-2
>Severity: normal
>
>Dear Maintainer,
>
>armhf currently fails to build on buildds but does build successfully on
>porterbox harris.debian.org
>
>This is because rust upstream assumes arm-unknown-lin
Package: rustc
Version: 1.10.0+dfsg1-2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
armhf currently fails to build on buildds but does build successfully on
porterbox harris.debian.org
This is because rust upstream assumes arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi has neon:
src/librustc_back/target/armv7_unknown_linux_gn
4 matches
Mail list logo