Bug#957029: ax25mail-utils: ftbfs with GCC-10
Re: David Ranch > > Do you think you can resolve the gcc 10 issues (-fcommon is the > > default now) and put up a new release we can package? > > Hmmm.. I don't have any systems that run GCC 10 today. Do either of these > packages NOT compile on your desired system? What Debian OS version are > you testing with? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=957029 This is the bug we are currently discussing here. (on Debian unstable) > > On the linpac side, I see Debian hasn't even picked up the last 0.25 > > release yet. I'll see to upload that soonish. > > I would recommend to focus on the 0.28 Git "Develop" branch We try to avoid packaging git snapshots. Please make a new tarball release if you want the changes to be included. > That's ok though coming out of the gates saying this package is "horrible", > "dead", etc. is a bit brutal. Sorry. I tried to add "extern" so some variable declarations but it didn't work out. Christoph
Bug#957029: ax25mail-utils: ftbfs with GCC-10
Hello Christoph, I was glancing at the SF.net repo for ax25mail-utils but thought I had seen the last commit in 2018. Sorry for being sloppy there. Ok, good that you see it now. Do you think you can resolve the gcc 10 issues (-fcommon is the default now) and put up a new release we can package? Hmmm.. I don't have any systems that run GCC 10 today. Do either of these packages NOT compile on your desired system? What Debian OS version are you testing with? On the linpac side, I see Debian hasn't even picked up the last 0.25 release yet. I'll see to upload that soonish. I would recommend to focus on the 0.28 Git "Develop" branch (Sorry, we have a lot of old dust in the hamradio team we have to work on removing, and I don't think anyone in the team has an overview over all the packages we curate, so please excuse my not so well-founded assessment of your utilities.) That's ok though coming out of the gates saying this package is "horrible", "dead", etc. is a bit brutal. --David KI6ZHD
Bug#957029: ax25mail-utils: ftbfs with GCC-10
> The last commit for ax25mail-utils was back in late December 2019 and April > 11th 2020 for Linpac so I wouldn't call these as "very much dead upstream". Hi David, thanks for the feedback! I was glancing at the SF.net repo for ax25mail-utils but thought I had seen the last commit in 2018. Sorry for being sloppy there. > It's more a matter than it's being sustained. Also, I'm not very familiar > with the Debian packaging process but I've never seen code reviews come from > the packaging process. Is this a new requirement? Is there a set of > required Debian best practices, etc. that is enforced here? Best general practice would be to see a new regular release in the form of a tarball. Do you think you can resolve the gcc 10 issues (-fcommon is the default now) and put up a new release we can package? On the linpac side, I see Debian hasn't even picked up the last 0.25 release yet. I'll see to upload that soonish. (Sorry, we have a lot of old dust in the hamradio team we have to work on removing, and I don't think anyone in the team has an overview over all the packages we curate, so please excuse my not so well-founded assessment of your utilities.) 73, Christoph DF7CB
Bug#957029: ax25mail-utils: ftbfs with GCC-10
Hello Chris, I am the current gatekeeper for this package written by a previous developer with significant help from others. Have you reviewed the current GIT "develop" branch: https://sourceforge.net/p/ax25mail/ax25mail-utils/ci/develop/tree/ same can be said for the Linpac package: https://sourceforge.net/p/linpac/linpac/ci/develop/tree/ The last commit for ax25mail-utils was back in late December 2019 and April 11th 2020 for Linpac so I wouldn't call these as "very much dead upstream". It's more a matter than it's being sustained. Also, I'm not very familiar with the Debian packaging process but I've never seen code reviews come from the packaging process. Is this a new requirement? Is there a set of required Debian best practices, etc. that is enforced here? --David On 08/04/2020 11:31 AM, Christoph Berg wrote: Control: tags -1 upstream wontfix gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Wall -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -c axgetlist.c In file included from /usr/include/string.h:495, from axgetlist.c:19: In function ‘strncat’, inlined from ‘load_config’ at axgetlist.c:127:42: /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:136:10: warning: ‘__builtin___strncat_chk’ output may be truncated copying 1 byte from a string of length 255 [-Wstringop-truncation] The package is horrible 1990ies C code cluttered with global variables that no not even agree about the definitions. Since it seems very much dead upstream, I think it's best to remove it, unless someone thinks it is still needed. (In which case we need a patch to fix this.) Christoph
Bug#957029: ax25mail-utils: ftbfs with GCC-10
Control: tags -1 upstream wontfix > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Wall -g > -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat > -Werror=format-security -c axgetlist.c > In file included from /usr/include/string.h:495, > from axgetlist.c:19: > In function ‘strncat’, > inlined from ‘load_config’ at axgetlist.c:127:42: > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:136:10: warning: > ‘__builtin___strncat_chk’ output may be truncated copying 1 byte from a > string of length 255 [-Wstringop-truncation] The package is horrible 1990ies C code cluttered with global variables that no not even agree about the definitions. Since it seems very much dead upstream, I think it's best to remove it, unless someone thinks it is still needed. (In which case we need a patch to fix this.) Christoph
