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

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#666142: Bug#666142: octave: Please support -mieee option to mkoctfile

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:07:50PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> On 30/03/12 06:04, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:30:11PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> >> On 29/03/12 17:20, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> >>> Source: octave
> >>> Version: 3.6.1-4
> >>>
> >>> octave-octcdf FTBFS on Alpha. (maybe on sh4 too.)
> >>>  http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=octave-octcdf&arch=alpha&ver=1.1.4-1&stamp=1332884789
> >>>
> >>> Because mkoctfile does not support mieee option, this problem happens.
> > How can I get access to an unstable sid chroot on alpha? Is DSA involved
> > in this as outlined in http://dsa.debian.org/doc/install-req/?
> Maybe.  My understanding is that the official Alpha buildd and porterbox
> are to be decommisioned when they are no longer needed for Lenny, but I
> don't know if that has happened or not.

Let's be clear: if I cannot get access to an unstable chroot for an
architecture, then bug reports for it will simply be closed without any
action. I don't mind supporting non-official architectures[1], but I
expect the means to do so are provided. 

> Anyway I attach an updated version of the miee patch that applies
> correctly to octave 3.6.1-4.  I have built octave on an Alpha in a clean
> chroot, installed it, and verified that octave-octcdf then builds to
> completion.

NACK, sorry. mkoctfile isn't a compiler and doesn't pretend to be one.
Passing compiler flags directly to it is wrong[tm]. I haven't had time
to look into it, but I suspect that the bug is actually in
octave-octcdf, which shouldn't pass -mieee to mkoctfile in the first

[1] I still have sh4 on my TODO list, albeit with low priority. 


Reply to: