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

Bug#638614: FTBFS on ia64 (internal compiler error)

Package: openmsx
Version: 0.8.1-1
Followup-For: Bug #638614

So, um, just asking here: if a package fails to build on one particular
architecture due to a bug in gcc, is that a reason to remove it from
testing and deny everyone the package?

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages openmsx depends on:
ii  cbios                   0.25-2           open source MSX BIOS roms
ii  libc6                   2.13-16          Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
ii  libgcc1                 1:4.6.1-4        GCC support library
ii  libgl1-mesa-glx [libgl1 7.10.3-4         free implementation of the OpenGL 
ii  libglew1.5              1.5.8-3          The OpenGL Extension Wrangler - ru
ii  libogg0                 1.2.2~dfsg-1     Ogg bitstream library
ii  libpng12-0              1.2.46-3         PNG library - runtime
ii  libsdl-ttf2.0-0         2.0.9-1          ttf library for Simple DirectMedia
ii  libsdl1.2debian         1.2.14-6.4       Simple DirectMedia Layer
ii  libstdc++6              4.6.1-4          GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libtheora0              1.1.1+dfsg.1-3   The Theora Video Compression Codec
ii  libvorbis0a             1.3.2-1          The Vorbis General Audio Compressi
ii  libxml2                 2.7.8.dfsg-4     GNOME XML library
ii  openmsx-data            0.8.1-1          datafiles for openMSX, an MSX emul
ii  tcl8.5                  8.5.10-1         Tcl (the Tool Command Language) v8
ii  zlib1g                  1: compression library - runtime

openmsx recommends no packages.

Versions of packages openmsx suggests:
ii  openmsx-catapult              0.8.1-2    GUI for openMSX
pn  openmsx-debugger              <none>     (no description available)

-- no debconf information

Reply to: