Re: mpich C++ translation (to the correct list)
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:23:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The main thing that we're blocked on at the moment is lam. lam
>> currently FTBFS on m68k due to a gcc 4.0 bug. I'm going to provide a
>> patch today to lower the optimization to -O2 for all architectures,
>> based on debian-devel comments that -O3 isn't a good idea on i386
>> either, and then it probably needs an NMU.
> Is it the main thing, or the only thing? We have been ignoring
> m68k-only build failures in select cases for testing migration.
It's the main thing; there are also lam migrations that have to happen and
there are a few stragglers for mpich and hdf5 that haven't been rebuilt.
I'll put together a list this evening.
>> Once the new lam has been uploaded and builds on m68k, the other
>> packages that depend on it can get uploaded to build with the new lam
>> (including netpipe, which depends on both lam and mpich and hasn't been
>> built for the new lam yet).
> Can these packages be uploaded with a versioned build-dependency on lam?
Yes; I was holding off with the hope of fixing m68k, but it looks like
that's too optimistic.
I'll file bugs against the lam packages that need migrations this evening,
asking that they be uploaded with a versioned build dependency on lam.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>