Re: mono_1.1.18-3 (arm/unstable): FTBFS: SIGSEGV
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 01:57:48PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> > So where does that leave us for etch? Does a mono that doesn't run on
> > netwinders and apparently not on smackdown either, but does run on other
> > cats systems, make the grade for release? If no one has time to investigate
> > the problem on netwinder, that at least suggests to me that netwinder isn't
> > that important a use case for the porters and probably not the users either.
> > Does the "TLS emulation" diagnosis imply a bug elsewhere in the kernel or
> > glibc rather than in mono?
> > Anyway, our three real choices here are:
> > - mono support on netwinder is not RC in the porters' estimation, so the bug
> > can be downgraded or etch-ignored
> > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, but no one has
> > time to work on this problem, so the arm binaries should be removed from
> > the archive for the release
> > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, and there is a
> > porter with the know-how and time to fix this bug who is volunteering to
> > have me nag them once every other day until it's fixed ;)
> > If we are still missing information for the porters to decide whether this
> > should be RC, what can I do to help get that information?
> OK. I don't have a netwinder to test on (tbm took mine), and probably
> don't have sufficient expertise either. This failure is extremely
> odd. I think we should etch-ignore this bug, it's not ideal, but
> no-one is rushing forward to fix it, and netwinders will become less
> important during this release. Their use as buildds is the main reason
> it's a problem in practice - can we arrange to only have this built on
> the non-netwinder machines?
Yes, getting the package built on non-netwinders should not be a problem --
and the autobuilder for stable is a cats box. I agree that if the problem
is specific to netwinder, there's probably no sense in treating this as
But does anyone understand yet *why* this bug affects the netwinders and not
the cats boxes?
> Removing mono from arm for this release entirely seems worse than
> having a version which does work on some(?)/most(?) hardware.
My biggest worry is that this is not a hardware issue at all but a kernel
issue, and we'll be bitten post-release when the kernels on the autobuilders
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.