On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 01:18, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
None here. Let's move forward.
Okay, great. Gotom, will you take care of building a new source
package? Let's try to build binaries for as many architectures as
possible in the next six hours.
p.
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 20:59, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
I think we are now in good enough shape to go ahead and upload 2.3.2-2
to unstable for tomorrow's dinstall. Any dissent?
Should we add if [ $ARCH = hppa ]; then exit 1; fi at
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 20:27, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I'll look at it tonight. There was another build failure, but it looks
solvable.
There were a couple of minor problems on alpha aside from the binutils
issue, but I have
On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 20:27, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I'll look at it tonight. There was another build failure, but it looks
solvable.
There were a couple of minor problems on alpha aside from the binutils
issue, but I have checked in patches for these and it seems to be
working now.
So, to update
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
I think we are now in good enough shape to go ahead and upload 2.3.2-2
to unstable for tomorrow's dinstall. Any dissent?
Should we add if [ $ARCH = hppa ]; then exit 1; fi at the top to make sure
hppa doesn't get clobbered
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 20:59, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
I think we are now in good enough shape to go ahead and upload 2.3.2-2
to unstable for tomorrow's dinstall. Any dissent?
Should we add if [ $ARCH = hppa ]; then exit 1; fi at
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 20:27, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I'll look at it tonight. There was another build failure, but it looks
solvable.
There were a couple of minor problems on alpha aside from the binutils
issue, but I have
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:27:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* mips/mipsel we wait Guido's build, it may be ok :)
Mips is o.k. with the already submitted patch. I hadn't time to look
into why only mips needs this since (among other hardware) my laptop
broke after returning from oslo
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:27:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* mips/mipsel we wait Guido's build, it may be ok :)
Mips is o.k. with the already submitted patch. I hadn't time to look
into why only mips needs this since (among other hardware) my laptop
broke after returning from oslo
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:34:29 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
My current result of test with the latest 2003-07-08 upstream cvs:
* alpha: build failed. (it needs new binutils or just fall back)
* arm: build failed. (SJLJ issue)
* hppa: build failed. (?)
* hurd-i386:
At Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:09:34 -0400,
Carlos O'Donell wrote:
these are m68k and hppa. not sure if it's an option or not. at least
for binutils glibc-2.3.1 shows failures where I see no ones with
2.2.3, is this fixed for 2.3.2?
I don't know because working m68k and hppa are not
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:27:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* alpha: build failed. (it needs new binutils or just fall back)
I started a build on my alpha box last night, but haven't checked on it
yet.
I'll look at it tonight. There was another build failure, but it looks
solvable.
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:34:29 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
My current result of test with the latest 2003-07-08 upstream cvs:
* alpha: build failed. (it needs new binutils or just fall back)
* arm: build failed. (SJLJ issue)
* hppa: build failed. (?)
* hurd-i386:
At Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:09:34 -0400,
Carlos O'Donell wrote:
these are m68k and hppa. not sure if it's an option or not. at least
for binutils glibc-2.3.1 shows failures where I see no ones with
2.2.3, is this fixed for 2.3.2?
I don't know because working m68k and hppa are not
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:27:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* alpha: build failed. (it needs new binutils or just fall back)
I started a build on my alpha box last night, but haven't checked on it
yet.
I'll look at it tonight. There was another build failure, but it looks
solvable.
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 00:57, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc build :)
Gee Carlos, if you ask nicely we could inflict that on you. ;)
Bah. Since you're the pretty much the most active glibc-hppa porter,
I'd do pretty much whatever you suggested for that port. That's like
suggesting that because drepper's not a DD we shouldn't follow his
advice. =) And if it weren't for me begging you to make glibc on HPPA
work, I'd be
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:42:49PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 00:57, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc build :)
Gee Carlos, if you ask nicely we could inflict that on you. ;)
Bah. Since you're the pretty much the most active glibc-hppa porter,
I'd do pretty much whatever you suggested for that port. That's like
suggesting that because drepper's not a DD we shouldn't follow his
advice. =) And if it weren't for me begging you to make glibc on HPPA
work, I'd be
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:42:49PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:34:29AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* mips/mipsel: no machine to build. Guido, please check.
Doesn't look too bad:
make[4]: ***
[/import/glibc/glibc-package-cvs/mips-linux/obj/stdio-common/tst-rndseek.out] Error 1
harmless, timeout due to my slow build
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:34:29AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
* mips/mipsel: no machine to build. Guido, please check.
Doesn't look too bad:
make[4]: ***
[/import/glibc/glibc-package-cvs/mips-linux/obj/stdio-common/tst-rndseek.out]
Error 1
harmless, timeout due to my slow
At 10 Jul 2003 11:09:09 +0100,
Philip Blundell wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 01:34, GOTO Masanori wrote:
arm:
SJLJ issue. dwarf2-unwind in glibc is not compiled because debian
gcc is built with --enable-sjlj-exceptions. arm gcc-3.3 is
excluded with this option, so I try
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc build :)
Gee Carlos, if you ask nicely we could inflict that on you.
At 10 Jul 2003 11:09:09 +0100,
Philip Blundell wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 01:34, GOTO Masanori wrote:
arm:
SJLJ issue. dwarf2-unwind in glibc is not compiled because debian
gcc is built with --enable-sjlj-exceptions. arm gcc-3.3 is
excluded with this option, so I try
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 10:30, GOTO Masanori wrote:
Thanks, I try to rebuild 2.3.2 on arm with empty
sysdeps/arm/framestate.c. BTW, does this mean arm32 uses sjlj
forever? Arm is vendor supported, feature vital architecture. Will
the transition be arrived?
Yes, ARM will eventually switch to
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:06:09 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
James Troup writes:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias, could you tell me that --enable-sjlj-exception is really
needed for some archs?
arm still uses sjlj based exceptions in 3.3, so there is at least one
arch
these are m68k and hppa. not sure if it's an option or not. at least
for binutils glibc-2.3.1 shows failures where I see no ones with
2.2.3, is this fixed for 2.3.2?
I don't know because working m68k and hppa are not available.
I'm still working on the hppa side. It builds. And I just
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Since debian doesn't check the test-suite results for install (e.g. we
aren't at a zero error in make check poilcy), it would be suicide to
install said glibc build :)
Gee Carlos, if you ask nicely we could inflict that on you.
James Troup writes:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias, could you tell me that --enable-sjlj-exception is really
needed for some archs?
arm still uses sjlj based exceptions in 3.3, so there is at least one
arch which does not have a choice.
Yes, it's needed. If we don't use
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 01:34, GOTO Masanori wrote:
arm:
SJLJ issue. dwarf2-unwind in glibc is not compiled because debian
gcc is built with --enable-sjlj-exceptions. arm gcc-3.3 is
excluded with this option, so I try to rebuild with gcc-3.3.
We should just exclude the dwarf2
Matthias, and could you tell me gcc-3.3 is really stable for all
architectures? I heard that BenC claimed gcc-3.3 was broken for
sparc64...
Yes, it's broken. Sparc's been downgraded to 3.2 as default until
davem has time to fix 3.3.
that should be rechecked with a current
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:12:35 +0100,
James Troup wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* mips/mipsel: no machine to build. Guido, please check.
There are some debian mips/el machines now. casals and williams
maybe?
I don't know williams, but I know casals. The problem is
James Troup writes:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias, could you tell me that --enable-sjlj-exception is really
needed for some archs?
arm still uses sjlj based exceptions in 3.3, so there is at least one
arch which does not have a choice.
Yes, it's needed. If we don't use
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 01:34, GOTO Masanori wrote:
arm:
SJLJ issue. dwarf2-unwind in glibc is not compiled because debian
gcc is built with --enable-sjlj-exceptions. arm gcc-3.3 is
excluded with this option, so I try to rebuild with gcc-3.3.
We should just exclude the dwarf2
Matthias, and could you tell me gcc-3.3 is really stable for all
architectures? I heard that BenC claimed gcc-3.3 was broken for
sparc64...
Yes, it's broken. Sparc's been downgraded to 3.2 as default until
davem has time to fix 3.3.
that should be rechecked with a current
At Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:16:45 +0200,
Guido Guenther wrote:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:01:49PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:48:53 +0200,
Guido Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:34:09PM -0700, solo turn wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* mips/mipsel:no machine to build. Guido, please check.
There are some debian mips/el machines now. casals and williams
maybe? I can't remember and db.d.o is still dead.
Matthias, could you tell me that --enable-sjlj-exception is really
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:12:35 +0100,
James Troup wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* mips/mipsel: no machine to build. Guido, please check.
There are some debian mips/el machines now. casals and williams
maybe?
I don't know williams, but I know casals. The problem is
At Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:16:45 +0200,
Guido Guenther wrote:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:01:49PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:48:53 +0200,
Guido Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:34:09PM -0700, solo turn wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* mips/mipsel:no machine to build. Guido, please check.
There are some debian mips/el machines now. casals and williams
maybe? I can't remember and db.d.o is still dead.
Matthias, could you tell me that --enable-sjlj-exception is really
42 matches
Mail list logo
