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
> > 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).
Camm Maguire firstname.lastname@example.org
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah