Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> writes: > Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes: > >> Am Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:09:26PM +0100 schrieb Gard Spreemann: >>> Ai ai, I see we now – post Andreas' upload – have an arm64-specific >>> build failure because I overlooked the fact that an arm64-specific >>> source file also needed patching. I've pushed 5efbe42a to salsa. It's >>> *untested*, but based on a quick grep I *think* it's enough. >> >> Do you need any uploading help? I admit I have no idea how to test. >> I would just build and upload if needed. > > Sorry, I should have been clearer: No, I could have uploaded, I just > didn't wanna spam an upload that I'm "only" 95% sure would fix the > issue. Especially since the buildds are busy churning through a bunch of > transitions. So I decided to push the fix to Salsa, in the hope that > someone else would have time to test it. If not, I'll give it a test on > a porterbox this weekend (the test would just be "does it build with GCC > 11 on an arm64 system now?"). Or, if you feel that the patch is likely > to succeed (I think it is – all the other architectures built fine, and > I *think* I found the only arm64-specific file affected), then feel free > to upload :-) Alas, the arm64 build error persists also on an arm64 porterbox. I am at a loss. -- Gard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature