[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#867358: marked as done (mips/mipsel: mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-7: waitid: bad address)

Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2017 19:43:11 +0100
with message-id <1507056191.2677.28.camel@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#867358: mips/mipsel: mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-7: waitid: bad address
has caused the Debian Bug report #867358,
regarding mips/mipsel: mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-7: waitid: bad address
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
867358: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867358
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: golang-github-pelletier-go-toml
Version: 1.0.0-1
Severity: serious

https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=golang-github-pelletier-go-toml&suite=sid

...
   dh_auto_test -a -O--buildsystem=golang
	go test -v -p 4 github.com/pelletier/go-toml github.com/pelletier/go-toml/cmd github.com/pelletier/go-toml/cmd/tomljson github.com/pelletier/go-toml/cmd/tomll github.com/pelletier/go-toml/query
go build github.com/davecgh/go-spew/spew: /usr/bin/mips-linux-gnu-gccgo-7: waitid: bad address
FAIL	github.com/pelletier/go-toml [build failed]
?   	github.com/pelletier/go-toml/cmd	[no test files]
...

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 4.13.1-1~exp1

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:17 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 23:01:00 +0100 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk
> > wrote:
> > > Hmm, I may have made a typo with that link. Here's the real one:
> > > https://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2017-03/msg00575.h
> > > tml
> > > 
> > > > James - assuming I guessed correctly above, why is it that the
> > > > second
> > > > patch "MIPS: Remove pt_regs adjustments in indirect syscall
> > > > handler"
> > > > hasn't been applied?  Was this fixed some other way upstream?
> > > 
> > > I've just tried with v4.13-rc1 and the bug is still not fixed
> > > there. My
> > > guess is that the first patch is more obviously correct than the
> > > second
> > > one so was applied first. I have never received any feedback on
> > > these
> > > patches so I don't actually know why only one of them was
> > > applied.
> > 
> > I'm certainly not able to review this patch, so I won't apply it
> > until
> > it's either accepted upstream or reviewed by Aurelien or another
> > MIPS
> > porter.
> > 
> 
> Ben,
> 
> James' two patches are included in 4.13. Forget to close this bug in
> latest upload to unstable?

4.13 is already in unstable. :-)

I'll also queue up the patch for stretch now.  Unfortunately it's too
late for next weekend's point release.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
                               A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: