Hi, Am Dienstag, den 04.06.2013, 22:13 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:08:53PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > I though you said that GHCi has problems on arm. Is that related to this > > build failure: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=haskell-vector&arch=armel&ver=0.10.0.1-3&stamp=1369565567 > > > > I don’t see why GHCi would be involved here, as there is no TH > > happening. > > That's the R_ARM_V4BX problem I mentioned here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-haskell/2013/05/msg00054.html > > It isn't a TH failure as such, just one that comes up a lot whenever TH > or GHCi is involved. I don't know why it happens to show up in that > particular place, but it's certainly possible that the missing handling > of this relocation would account for more than just the GHCi-related > failures on armel (not armhf). > > The patch in my above post should fix this, if anyone can test it. For > us, it's safe to entirely ignore the relocation like this because Debian > armel is (AIUI) ARMv4t at minimum anyway so we have no need for this > specialised relocation that's used for fixing things up to work on plain > old ARMv4. Even for upstream, I think the chances of anyone caring > about running modern Haskell code on a StrongARM are pretty limited > given that current distributions don't tend to support them. all very messy, with the problem now affecting non-GHCi packages. I wanted to check the test suite output on armel, but the test suite depends on libghc-vector-dev... I guess we can simply test your patch by uploading a new GHC packge, that would also disable GHCi on arm. Anything else you or others want to see in a GHC upload? Reminder to myself: GHC-Packages headers would be nice. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part