Le 27 mars 2014 15:05, "Mathieu Malaterre" <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jakub Wilk <email@example.com> wrote:
> > * Mathieu Malaterre <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 2014-03-27, 13:06:
> >> I preferred not to mass bug everyone out there and instead:
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742780
> > But many packages don't regenerate autofoo at build-time. :-(
> And your point is ?
> It may not impact package built with gcc-4.5, only those that have
> been rebuild since gcc-4.6. But anyway the generated code (whether it
> is in m4 or in the generated auto* stuff) is bogus since the begining.
> >> LFS is still a release goal, not a requirement.
> > Then "severity: grave" is probably overkill. :-P
> If as an application programmer I cannot get memcpy to copy past the
> first 32bits of size_t (x86_64), I would call it a grave issue in
> Same thing if I use autoconf macro to tell whether or not my system
> support LFS, but it keeps on claiming it does not. I personally call
> it a grave issue ... right ?
> This is really a regression, package on 32bits arch used to support
> LFS, but since gcc 4.6 came it they do not anymore.
Could we detected by checking configure ? We could issue a Lintian tag
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
> Archive: [🔎] CA+7wUszd=ux-gm=WJE6StGEHEZtP6zMDb0sZ47AAS0NcC4LdWg@mail.gmail.com">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CA+7wUszd=ux-gm=WJE6StGEHEZtP6zMDb0sZ47AAS0NcC4LdWg@mail.gmail.com