Package: src:deal.ii
Version: 9.5.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org, Debian Boost Team
[...]
[ 41%] Building CXX object
source/dofs/CMakeFiles/object_dofs_debug.dir/number_cache.cc.o
cd /<>/obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu/source/dofs &&
Link time optimizations are an optimization that helps with a single digit
percent number optimizing both for smaller size, and better speed. These
optimizations are available for some time now in GCC. Link time optimizations
are also at least turned on in other distros like Fedora, OpenSuse
On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> I am sorry for the later response.
>Hi,
>
> I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
> to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end
> of 2024):
>
> For mipsel and mips64el, I
> - test most
Debian bullseye will be based on a gcc-10 package taken from the gcc-10 upstream
branch, and binutils based on a binutils package taken from the 2.35 branch.
I'm planning to make gcc-10 the default after gcc-10 (10.2.0) is available
(upstream targets mid July). binutils will be updated before
GCC 9 was released earlier this year, it is now available in Debian
testing/unstable. I am planning to do the defaults change in mid August, around
the time of the expected first GCC 9 point release (9.2.0).
There are only soname changes for rather unused shared libraries (libgo)
involved, and
The recent gcc-8 and gcc-9 uploads to unstable are now built using pgo and lto
optimization. Not on all architectures, see debian/rules.defs. On the plus
side the compilers are 7-10% faster, however the build time of the compiler is
much longer, adding 10-20 hours. If people feel that this
On 26.05.19 21:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable
> (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again
> in
> NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FTP assistants is objectin
On 13.04.19 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
>> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
>> deb,
On 08.02.19 12:11, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 2/8/19 12:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Upstream GCC has removed the powerpcspe support in GCC 9, and I'd like to
>> stop
>> building the powerpcspe cross compilers for sid/buster.
>
> Can we wait until gc
Upstream GCC has removed the powerpcspe support in GCC 9, and I'd like to stop
building the powerpcspe cross compilers for sid/buster. This doesn't affect the
native GCC 8 builds, but only gcc-8-cross-ports, gcc-7-cross-ports,
gcc-defaults-ports and binutils.
Matthias
On 07.07.18 17:24, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Niels Thykier 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>> List of concerns for architectures
>> ==
>>
>> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
>> table.
>>
>> * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
GCC 8 is configured now with quadmath support on ppc64el. There shouldn't be
any other differences. But having the preprocessed source and the command line
options used for the build would be useful.
On 30.08.2018 14:11, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Package: gcc-8
>
GCC 8 is available in testing/unstable, and upstream is approaching the first
point release. I am planning to make GCC 8 the default at the end of the week
(gdc and gccgo already point to GCC 8). Most runtime libraries built from GCC
are already used in the version built from GCC 8, so I don't
According to [1], binutils 2.31 (currently in experimental) will branch in about
a week, and I'll plan to upload the branch version to unstable. Test results
are reported to [2], these look reasonable, except for the various mips targets,
however as seen in the past, it doesn't make a
[CCing porters, please also leave feedback in #835148 for non-release
architectures]
On 29.09.2016 21:39, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!
> * It is a substantial
On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
>
> I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
> maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not
On 15.09.2016 22:43, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
>> toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria
>> documented
&
On 10.09.2016 09:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10-09-16 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - fpc not available on powerpc anymore (may have changed recently)
>
> For whatever it is worth, this was finally fixed this week. It is
> missing on mips*, ppc64el and s390
While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
some of the toolchains available in Debian.
I appreciate that
that should be fixed on the kernel side by removing this code. there never was a
powerpcle userland support. If this is not possible in the short term, then we
can re-enable this for unstable for some time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Please see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=python3.4arch=ppc64elver=3.4.2-3stamp=1417544125
failing the test_signal and test_tar tests. I assume this is some buildd setup
issue, but would like to have the ppc64el porter have a look first. I can't
reproduce this locally.
Hi,
I'll change the default GCC to 4.9 with a gcc-defaults upload next week for the
remaining architectures, then updating the build-essential package to require
GCC 4.9.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
of where to begin.
I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn.
Where do I start?
Patrick
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change
of
the default to 4.9
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805
Am 16.01.2014 13:31, schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar:
For mips/mipsel, I - fix toolchain issues together with other developers at
ImgTec
It is nice to see such a commitment, however in the past I didn't see any such
contributions.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
gcc-4.9 is uploaded to experimental, asking the porters to watch for build
failures and corresponding patches. See
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.9suite=experimental
These are already fixed in the vcs.
- fixed the gospec.c ftbfs on archs without ld.gold
- fixed the g++
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Am 29.10.2013 17:48, schrieb Ian Jackson:
(Mind you, I have my doubts about a process which counts people
promising to do work - it sets up some rather unfortunate incentives.
I guess it's easier to judge and more prospective than a process which
attempts to gauge whether the work has been
Am 12.09.2013 18:06, schrieb Geoff Levand:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 14:37 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Control: reassign -1 newlib
Am 12.09.2013 08:31, schrieb Niels Thykier:
Package: gcc-defaults,newlib
Severity: important
Dear maintainers of gcc-defaults and newlib,
I noticed
Control: reassign -1 newlib
Am 12.09.2013 08:31, schrieb Niels Thykier:
Package: gcc-defaults,newlib
Severity: important
Dear maintainers of gcc-defaults and newlib,
I noticed that gcc-defaults have removed the gnu-spu package in sid,
but newlib still build-depends on it. Since there
Am 15.06.2013 03:22, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
desirable:
- The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
- A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on ia64 -
when
they are updated next time
Am 13.06.2013 21:47, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
Matthias Klose dixit:
The Java and D frontends now default to 4.8 on all architectures, the Go
frontend stays at 4.7 until 4.8 get the complete Go 1.1 support.
I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
until the 4.8 one
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
Hi,
On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
get
any feedback from other port maintainers, so
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly
submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu
packages, apologies for that.
For jessie, I'll stop building the spu/cell cross compilers out of the binutils
and gcc-4.x source packages. Now that we can build cross toolchains using the
binary {binutils,gcc-4-x}-source packages, people could build the spu toolchain
like it's done for mingw or other targets.
Matthias
--
GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except the D
frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
There are still some build failures which need to be addressed. Out of the ~350
bugs filed, more than the half are fixed, another quarter has patches available,
and the
On 07.05.2012 19:35, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Matthias Klose dixit:
GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except
the D
frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
How are the plans for other architectures?
I don't have plans to change any other architectures
GCC-4.7 packages are now available in testing and unstable; thanks to Lucas'
test rebuild, bug reports are now filed for these ~330 packages which fail to
build with the new version [1]. Hints how to address the vast majority of these
issues can be found at [2].
I'm planning to work on these
Please have a look at the gcc-4.7 package in experimental, update patches (hurd,
kfreebsd, ARM is fixed in svn), and investigate the build failures (currently
ia64, but more will appear).
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 06/26/2011 11:35 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 08:04 -0400, Durandal Dokucheyav wrote:
Hello,
I am contacting you guys on behalf of http://gitbrew.org. We have
recently released the otherOS++ firmware for the Sony Playstation 3,
allowing the install of third-party OSes
tag 624354 + help moreinfo
thanks
On 04/28/2011 07:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
reassign 624354 binutils
thanks
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:08PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
reassign 624354 xulrunner-1.9.1
thanks
too easy. please make sure that all objects involved in the link are
built
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
libxul.so. QED.
shows nothing at all, and in particular no reason for the reassignment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 04/28/2011 10:06 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
libxul.so
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klosed...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386
tag 623141 + moreinfo help
thanks
On 04/17/2011 08:04 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
Package: binutils
Version: 2.21.0.20110327-3
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: ncur...@packages.debian.org
On powerpc ld segfaults trying to link 64-bit libncurses5, making
ncurses FTBFS. Here is an excerpt from the
On 02.03.2011 07:36, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 2 March 2011 03:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
default
compiler
On 02.03.2011 17:54, Martin Guy wrote:
On 2 March 2011 02:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
armel (although optimized for a different processor)
Hi
For which processor (/architecture) is it optimized, and do you mean
optimized-for, or only-runs-on?
I ask in case this would mean
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises
on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the
On 16.11.2010 10:42, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*. If a library has been explicitly
linked in, it shouldn't be removed. This
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The
rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain
On 16.11.2010 01:24, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs (turning on
--as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking. I would like to know about issues
with these changes on some of the Debian ports, and if we need
On 16.12.2009 15:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:26:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: gcc-4.4
Version: 4.4.1-5
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR41621, not seen with gcc-4.5/gcc-snapshot
This breaks iceape and xulrunner on powerpc
please could somebody look at the gcc-4.4 build failure while building the spu
cross compiler? I'm unable to reproduce this on current lucid, but don't have a
powerpc unstable chroot available.
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gcc-4.4ver=4.4.2-5arch=powerpcstamp=1260867078file=log
Package: gcc-4.4
Version: 4.4.1-5
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR41621, not seen with gcc-4.5/gcc-snapshot
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Besides the open license issue, are there any objections from port maintainers
to make GCC-4.4 the default?
As a first step that would be a change of the default for C, C++, ObjC, ObjC++
and Fortran.
I'm not sure about Java, which show some regressions compared to 4.3. Otoh it's
not amymore
Hi,
openjdk-6 in unstable is updated to the 6b14 code drop, built from a recent
IcedTea snapshot. There are a few regressions in the ports which don't use the
hotspot VM, but the Zero VM. Help from porters would be appreciated.
There are two new binary packages offering additional JVMs:
-
Besides m68k hopelessly being behind we do have serious problems on
alpha, arm and hppa.
- on arm, the bytecode compiler (ecj) doesn't produce correct code.
there is currently a workaround to build the package on arm using
byte-compiled code built on another architecture. Aurelian has
The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
objections against the transition.
While having built and uploaded things correctly for experimental, I
didn't do the same for unstable, which now needs some manual
intervention building gnat-4.1 and gcj-4.1.
gnat-4.1 (mips mipsel s390 sparc):
- work in a sid chroot
- install gnat-4.1-base libgnat-4.1 libgnatprj4.1
On http://people.debian.org/~doko/gcc-3.[34] you find packages with a
setup to build biarch compilers on powerpc (which needs a 64bit glibc
as a build dependency).
- gcc-3.3: added a patch to build from the hammer branch (3.3.4). This
works on i386, fails on amd64, powerpc unknown. edit
With current gcc-3.3 CVS on i386 I am unable to reproduce this
one. Please could somebody verify this for powerpc as well?
- get the current gcc-3.3 source package
- in debian/rules.patch, add debian_patches += m68k-update1
- rebuild the package
- rebuild XFree86 with the new compiler.
Thanks,
At least python-numeric and gcc-3.3 fail to build. Please reschedule.
Thanks, Matthias
Due to a missing shlibs entry I cannot see if anyone is actually using
the -nof package. If not we could eliminate it... or just provide it
for gcc-3.2 and stop providing it for gcc-3.3.
Thanks, Matthias
Good news first. It becomes more tedious to track the bug-free
packages. Besides the usual serious bugs, the following issues remain:
- wxwindows2.2 is still unbuildable in unstable, not yet removed
from unstable, package maintainer does not respond. Oh fun!
- postgresql: doesn't go to testing
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Yes, absolutely. You might want to wait a tiny bit, though; Geoff said
that he was working on something about hidden/protected support.
Yes, I caught that message as well. I figure we may as well try
I have been able to install potato on a Mac G4 from the fsn.hu cd
images. Now Debian boots as the default OS. Is there a way to make
MacOS the default again? Pressing no key at startup should boot MacOS,
pressing SPACE or the optioon key should bring up the boot menu.
Another thing: Is there a
Not sure if this is a bad iDea ... I assume it is recommended to
install LinuxPPC first? Is the iMac network chip supported by the
LinuxPPC kernel?
Thanks, Matthias
Another question: Currenty there are two HFS+ partitions on the
disk. Is there a way to keep the first partition and delete the
The egcs-1.1 release begins to appear on the horizon. As you can see
in http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-Aug/0148.html a testsuite for
egcs-1.1 was choosen:
We've also got to get the glibc, linux kernel and RH5.1 build tests
going in full swing.
Who wants to volunteer for any of this work?
The egcs-1.1 release begins to appear on the horizon. As you can see
in http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-Aug/0148.html a testsuite for
should be: http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-Aug/0418.html
74 matches
Mail list logo
