Bug#592768: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 592768 squeeze-can-defer tag 592768 squeeze-ignore kthxbye On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:40 -0400, David Bremner wrote: Hi; It seems like the install problems for clisp might only be happening on powerpc64. There are several reports of installation success on powerpc, and I verified myself on qemu-system-powerpc. Debian does not have any powerpc64 porterbox, so this is difficult for me to test. I'm not sure what this means from the point of view of Squeeze release. It does seem a bit odd to pull clisp from the release based on bugs which we cannot duplicate on Debian machines. On the other hand, officially there is no separate powerpc64 architecture, and having only 32 bit supported is hardly desirable. Of course, if someone can duplicate the bug running a 32-bit kernel that changes things. I still think we probably need a powerpc64 porterbox if powerpc is going to continue as a release architecture post squeeze. Deferring for squeeze. We can include a fix in a point release. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#592768: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was
jcris...@debian.org).
usertag 592768 squeeze-can-defer
Bug#592768: clisp segfaults on install on powerpc system.
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: squeeze-can-defer.
tag 592768 squeeze-ignore
Bug #592768 {Done: David Bremner brem...@debian.org} [clisp] clisp segfaults
on install on powerpc system.
Bug #594178 {Done: David Bremner brem...@debian.org} [clisp] clisp: SIGSEGV
during install
Added tag(s) squeeze-ignore.
Added tag(s) squeeze-ignore.
kthxbye
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
592768: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592768
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#592768: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
Hi; It seems like the install problems for clisp might only be happening on powerpc64. There are several reports of installation success on powerpc, and I verified myself on qemu-system-powerpc. Debian does not have any powerpc64 porterbox, so this is difficult for me to test. I'm not sure what this means from the point of view of Squeeze release. It does seem a bit odd to pull clisp from the release based on bugs which we cannot duplicate on Debian machines. On the other hand, officially there is no separate powerpc64 architecture, and having only 32 bit supported is hardly desirable. Of course, if someone can duplicate the bug running a 32-bit kernel that changes things. I still think we probably need a powerpc64 porterbox if powerpc is going to continue as a release architecture post squeeze. David pgpis9VZiCvvG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#592768: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
David, am Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:40AM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben: Of course, if someone can duplicate the bug running a 32-bit kernel that changes things. I still think we probably need a powerpc64 porterbox if powerpc is going to continue as a release architecture post squeeze. I lobbied hard to get ppc64 buildds at all. Now we have three: porpora, poulenc and praetorius. As porpora and poulenc are identical Apple XServe G5, and given that we still have the slow voltaire as a ppc32 around, it might make sense to get one of the two to be a ppc porterbox with 64bit kernel. I don't know if porterboxes are possible at that location, however. Thus Cc'ing d-admin and the local admin. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#592768: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
On Fri, 14, Jan, 2011 at 02:05:29PM +0100, Philipp Kern spoke thus.. David, am Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:40AM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben: Of course, if someone can duplicate the bug running a 32-bit kernel that changes things. I still think we probably need a powerpc64 porterbox if powerpc is going to continue as a release architecture post squeeze. I lobbied hard to get ppc64 buildds at all. Now we have three: porpora, poulenc and praetorius. As porpora and poulenc are identical Apple XServe G5, and given that we still have the slow voltaire as a ppc32 around, it might make sense to get one of the two to be a ppc porterbox with 64bit kernel. I don't know if porterboxes are possible at that location, however. Thus Cc'ing d-admin and the local admin. Unlikely we can make that a publically accessible porterbox I'm afraid. I'd have to talk to networks at the University but I'm not sure they'd be happy with it. I'll ask though. Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org But Yossarian *still* didn't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for five cents. Catch 22, Joseph Heller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
