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


Greetings, and thank you so much for looking into this!

OK, I found a genuine problem which I've corrected in the latest
upload (which became apparent when mips and mipsel failed in exactly
the same placeO), and now we're still back at a mipsel pass and a mips
failure.  Would you mind veryifying that this is not due to some
physical problem on the mips buildd?  (Or perhaps indicate that I
might be granted an exception to the prohibition on casals for doing
by hand builds?  Is there any other developer machine for this

Take care, and thanks!

> Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings, and thank you so much for looking into this!
> > 
> > I see how the host matching failed, but both config files use native
> > object relocation to my understanding.
> It was just a theory to explain a succeeding mipsel build despite the
> broken source in -40. Probably mipsel had already picked up -41 in the
> meanwhile.
> > Also, the last patch I believe
> > should already be applied into the -41 package which failed.  Can I
> > take from your remarks that you've seen a successful build on a mips
> > (as opposed to mipsel) machine?  If so, then the hypothesis might go
> > back to a physical, hopefully transient, problem on the mips buildd?
> It was a successful build of -40 on a mips machine.
> > I have a small fix to make for ia64 too.  If there is no known source
> > problem for mips then I'll upload right after addressing this.  Your
> > advice most appreciated!
> I still recommend to use the standard match patterns in the configure.in
> file (and to do the mipsel check before the mips one).
> Thiemo

Camm Maguire			     			camm@enhanced.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Reply to: