On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 14:20 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > But the previous version, 1.9.1-1, failed, and there is really no > > difference in 1.9.1.1-1 that would explain that. > > > > On the other hand, 1.9.1-1 was built with: > > Toolchain package versions: libc6.1-dev_2.9-13 g++-4.3_4.3.3-13 > > gcc-4.3_4.3.3-13 binutils_2.19.1-1 libstdc++6_4.4.0-10 > > libstdc++6-4.3-dev_4.3.3-13 > > > > while 1.9.1.1-1 was built with: > > Toolchain package versions: libc6.1-dev_2.9-13 g++-4.3_4.3.3-14 > > gcc-4.3_4.3.3-14 binutils_2.19.1-1 libstdc++6_4.4.0-11 > > libstdc++6-4.3-dev_4.3.3-14 > > > > Maybe this made the difference. > > Any news on this bug report? > > Alpha-porters, could you perhaps help here? It appears the main difference between failure and success in the experimental buildds was gcc-4.3 4.3.3-13 vs 4.3.3-14. Since gcc-4.3 has had an update since then to a new release-candidate, perhaps a give-back on alpha will fix this issue if the buildd chroots have been updated? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part