Wouter Verhelst wrote: > What do you want the buildd maintainers to do? If you suspect that a > rebuild will fix the issue, we can trigger a binNMU and see whether it > does; otherwise, please direct porting questions to the debian-powerpc > mailinglist only. As Gerfried stated that it was a wrong assumption earlier, it is not a buildd problem. Sorry for bothering. > "The buildd is broken" would mean something like "the buildd has a > corrupt /var/lib/dpkg/status file" or "the compiler was incorrectly > installed on the machine", or something similar. If the compiler is > installed correctly but generates broken code, that would mean a bug in > the compiler. This I find extremely unlikely, however; it's much more > likely that the bug is in apt, but that it is a porting issue that is > powerpc specific. > > If that is the case, there are two things you should look at: > - endianness: i386 is little endian, powerpc is big endian. If your code > makes assumptions about endianness in some places, verify that code. > - assumption about char signedness: 'char' is unsigned on powerpc, and > signed almost everywhere else. If you have a 'char' datatype > somewhere, verify whether the code tries to assign a negative value to > that variable; if it does, then that's probably your bug and you > should either change the code to not make assumptions, or change the > declaration to say 'signed char'. Thanks for advices. I will try to investigate. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com Ukrainian C++ developer, Debian APT contributor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature