Control: found -1 0.8-3
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: retitle -2 patchelf: Tests fail on foreign binaries
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: forwarded -2 https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf/issues/69
On 13 November 2015 at 17:23, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 13 November 2015
Hi Felipe. Thanks for the quick action.
Unfortunately, the package did not build successfully on buildd, but it is
a problem with a binary file.
Specifically the binary file called "no-rpath", within "tests" directory.
So the test suite failed.
It is shipped with the source pkg, but it differs
On 13 November 2015 at 16:31, Fernando Seiti Furusato
wrote:
> Hi Felipe. Thanks for the quick action.
>
> Unfortunately, the package did not build successfully on buildd, but it is
> a problem with a binary file.
> Specifically the binary file called "no-rpath", within
On 11 November 2015 at 14:45, Fernando Seiti Furusato
wrote:
> Hi Felipe.
>
> I have just tested commit 35ecfa7 and it works indeed.
> Are you able to apply that one on the package?
Excellent! I will apply and upload ASAP.
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
Hi Felipe.
I have just tested commit 35ecfa7 and it works indeed.
Are you able to apply that one on the package?
Thanks!
--
Fernando Seiti Furusato
Software Engineer
IBM Brazil - Linux Technology Center
On 2 October 2015 at 15:26, Fernando Seiti Furusato wrote:
> Followup-For: Bug #799880
>
> Hi Felipe.
Hi, sorry for the late reply.
>
> I have just picked some parts of commit 6900c and applied to the
> debian package.
> It built so I generated the debdiff. I also tested it
Followup-For: Bug #799880
Hi Felipe.
I have just picked some parts of commit 6900c and applied to the
debian package.
It built so I generated the debdiff. I also tested it in an amd64.
The debdiff is attached.
Thanks and regards.
diff -Nru patchelf-0.8/debian/changelog
Hi Felipe. Sorry for the delay.
fsate...@gmail.com wrote on 23/09/2015 17:20:43:
> Which ones do you refer as arch-specific?
Those no-rpath-.sh for instance. They seem to be arch specific, at
least
by looking at their name.
> > So I am not sure cherry-picking that specific patch would work.
fsate...@gmail.com wrote on 29/09/2015 11:30:14:
> Perhaps I could package up a snapshot, but I make no promises. If you
> pick up the commits that make it work on ppc64el I can upload a
> version with those, of course. I will reping upstream to see if we can
> get him to release a new version.
On 29 September 2015 at 11:23, Fernando Seiti Furusato
wrote:
> Hi Felipe. Sorry for the delay.
>
> fsate...@gmail.com wrote on 23/09/2015 17:20:43:
>
>> Which ones do you refer as arch-specific?
>
> Those no-rpath-.sh for instance. They seem to be arch specific, at
> least
>
Source: patchelf
Version: 0.8-2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The package patchelf, although it does build, it fails on the test suite.
That is because the setting of the pageSize to 4K does not fit ppc archs.
When changing to 64K, the tests that fail pass, but no-rpath.sh fails.
That is
Hi Fernando,
On 23 September 2015 at 14:10, Fernando Seiti Furusato
wrote:
> Source: patchelf
> Version: 0.8-2
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> The package patchelf, although it does build, it fails on the test suite.
> That is because the setting of the pageSize
Source: patchelf
Followup-For: Bug #799880
Hi Felipe.
Thanks for the prompt response.
The patch itself only does not work. I also tried other things like copying the
test scripts and c source files within test directory. Which did not work.
However, building from the upstream source code (which
On 23 September 2015 at 16:15, Fernando Seiti Furusato
wrote:
> Source: patchelf
> Followup-For: Bug #799880
>
> Hi Felipe.
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
> The patch itself only does not work. I also tried other things like copying
> the
> test scripts and c source
14 matches
Mail list logo