On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:30 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Test cases that passed in patchelf 0.8 fail since 0.9,
> > and segmentation fault on things like setting rpath
> > might be close enough to "entirely broken".
>
> In that case, it would
Hi,
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Test cases that passed in patchelf 0.8 fail since 0.9,
> and segmentation fault on things like setting rpath
> might be close enough to "entirely broken".
In that case, it would certainly help upstream if someone
(maintainer/porter) could try to "git
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 05:22:18PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > pyside2 is now built without patchelf on mips64el.
> >
> > Doing the same for mips and mipsel should fix the problem for pivy.
>
> Yeah, but this is not going in the right
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> pyside2 is now built without patchelf on mips64el.
>
> Doing the same for mips and mipsel should fix the problem for pivy.
Yeah, but this is not going in the right direction. This means that
pyside will be built with the embedded patchelf. The
Control: reassign -1 src:pyside2
Control: retitle -1 pyside2 should build without patchelf also on mips+mipsel
Control: affects -1 src:pivy
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:47:26PM +, peter green wrote:
> Package: pivy
> Version: 0.6.4-1
> Severity: serious
>
> pivy cannot be built on mips/mipsel
Package: pivy
Version: 0.6.4-1
Severity: serious
pivy cannot be built on mips/mipsel because of a depedency on pyside2 which is
not built on mips/mipsel pyside2 is not being built on those architectures due
to a dependency on patchelf. patchelf is not currently building on mips* due to
a
6 matches
Mail list logo
