I'm investigating an armhf FTBFS of my package 'minimodem'[0], which I now suspect might be caused by this libfftw3 bug in unstable:
Edmund et al., I would appreciate your expertise here... Does it also appear to you that my minimodem (0.20-1) failure[0] could be caused by the fftw3 "NEON is perhaps broken" bug? Does it make sense that abel.d.o would be affected by it, but harris and asachi would not?
Cédric, you might want to re-try your ruby-fftw3 build test on
abel.debian.org and consider re-opening #752514 [1].
Hector, could this situation result in a possible inconsistency among the armhf buildd's? (Or at least, among the porterbox armhf chroots)?
All: Should the severity of the libfftw3 bug #767138 be elevated to "serious"?
Thanks in advance for your help,
-Kamal
To replicate the minimodem failure for debugging:
(sid_armhf-dchroot)$ echo hello | src/minimodem --tx -f /tmp/foo.wav 1200 # this does not call libfftw3
(sid_armhf-dchroot)$ gdb --args src/minimodem --rx -f /tmp/foo.wav 1200
...
Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
0xb6f47e9a in ?? () from /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libfftw3f.so.3
[1] #752514 "ruby-fftw3: FTBFS on armhf"
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752514