Bug#994285: libseccomp: FTBFS on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel
Hi Felix, Quoting Felix Geyer (2021-09-30 20:56:14) > On 30.09.21 08:40, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:15:16 +0200 Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues > > wrote: > >> you set the upstream bug to > >> https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/336 > >> but I don't think that is correct. The failures is not the same for the > >> different architectures. mipsel fails different than arm64. I bisected > >> upstream git on both architectures and found out that the arm64 failure was > >> introduced in aa0f858 and the mipsel failure comes from e976080. > >> > >> I contacted upstream about that here: > >> https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/338 > > > > the problem has no been present in unstable for three weeks. This is > > blocking > > my work. Could we revert the offending commits or at least set a deadline > > up to > > how long we want to wait for upstream to fix this issue? > > > > I'm willing to put work into an NMU in case you don't have the time right > > now. > > I've prepared a revert of the problematic commits in the git repo. > > So far I've tested amd64 build+autopkgtest and mipsel build, no issues yet. thank you for your quick reply and for working on this! I have built the current git debian/sid branch on abel (armhf porter box) and it builds fine there as well. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#994285: libseccomp: FTBFS on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel
Hi, On 30.09.21 08:40, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: Hi Felix, On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:15:16 +0200 Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: you set the upstream bug to https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/336 but I don't think that is correct. The failures is not the same for the different architectures. mipsel fails different than arm64. I bisected upstream git on both architectures and found out that the arm64 failure was introduced in aa0f858 and the mipsel failure comes from e976080. I contacted upstream about that here: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/338 the problem has no been present in unstable for three weeks. This is blocking my work. Could we revert the offending commits or at least set a deadline up to how long we want to wait for upstream to fix this issue? I'm willing to put work into an NMU in case you don't have the time right now. I've prepared a revert of the problematic commits in the git repo. So far I've tested amd64 build+autopkgtest and mipsel build, no issues yet. Cheers, Felix
Bug#994285: libseccomp: FTBFS on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel
Hi Felix, On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:15:16 +0200 Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > you set the upstream bug to https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/336 > but I don't think that is correct. The failures is not the same for the > different architectures. mipsel fails different than arm64. I bisected > upstream git on both architectures and found out that the arm64 failure was > introduced in aa0f858 and the mipsel failure comes from e976080. > > I contacted upstream about that here: > https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/338 the problem has no been present in unstable for three weeks. This is blocking my work. Could we revert the offending commits or at least set a deadline up to how long we want to wait for upstream to fix this issue? I'm willing to put work into an NMU in case you don't have the time right now. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#994285: libseccomp: FTBFS on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel
Hi Felix, you set the upstream bug to https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/336 but I don't think that is correct. The failures is not the same for the different architectures. mipsel fails different than arm64. I bisected upstream git on both architectures and found out that the arm64 failure was introduced in aa0f858 and the mipsel failure comes from e976080. I contacted upstream about that here: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/338 Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#994285: libseccomp: FTBFS on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel
Source: libseccomp Version: 2.5.1-1 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) Hi, libseccomp fails to build on arm64, armhf, mips64el and mipsel. This in turn makes the tests of my package mmdebstrap fail because of the resulting Multi-Arch:same version skew between amd64 and arm64. Thanks! cheers, josch
