Your message dated Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:57:38 +0200 with message-id <20120717175738.GB7369@radis.cristau.org> and subject line Re: Bug#680729: unblock: google-perftools/2.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #680729, regarding unblock: google-perftools/2.0-3 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 680729: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680729 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: unblock: google-perftools/2.0-3
- From: Daigo Moriwaki <daigo@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:46:49 +0900
- Message-id: <20120708094649.5704.95404.reportbug@becrux.sgtpepper.net>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package google-perftools The package in unstable fixes the following issues, which would be of use for users and us. * debian/patches/20120708_ppc_ftbfs.patch: Imported Ubuntu's patch, fixing a build failure on powerpc, derived from the upstream: http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/issues/detail?id=431 Thanks to James Page <james.page@ubuntu.com>. (Closes: #680305) * debian/control: Bumped up to libunwind8-dev for Build-Depends. (Closes: #680724) Regards, Daigo unblock google-perftools/2.0-3 -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.5 APT prefers stable APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=ja_JP.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dashdiff -u google-perftools-2.0/debian/control google-perftools-2.0/debian/control --- google-perftools-2.0/debian/control +++ google-perftools-2.0/debian/control @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Section: libs Priority: optional Maintainer: Daigo Moriwaki <daigo@debian.org> -Build-Depends: cdbs, autoconf, automake1.9, libtool, patchutils, debhelper (>= 9.0.0), binutils, libunwind7-dev [amd64] +Build-Depends: cdbs, autoconf, automake1.9, libtool, patchutils, debhelper (>= 9.0.0), binutils, libunwind8-dev [amd64] Build-Conflicts: autoconf2.13, automake1.4 Standards-Version: 3.9.3 Homepage: http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/ diff -u google-perftools-2.0/debian/changelog google-perftools-2.0/debian/changelog --- google-perftools-2.0/debian/changelog +++ google-perftools-2.0/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,14 @@ +google-perftools (2.0-3) unstable; urgency=low + + * debian/patches/20120708_ppc_ftbfs.patch: Imported Ubuntu's patch, fixing + a build failure on powerpc, derived from the upstream: + http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/issues/detail?id=431 + Thanks to James Page <james.page@ubuntu.com>. (Closes: #680305) + * debian/control: Bumped up to libunwind8-dev for Build-Depends. + (Closes: #680724) + + -- Daigo Moriwaki <daigo@debian.org> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:08:36 +0900 + google-perftools (2.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * Some include files were left out of the package. only in patch2: unchanged: --- google-perftools-2.0.orig/debian/patches/20120708_ppc_ftbfs.patch +++ google-perftools-2.0/debian/patches/20120708_ppc_ftbfs.patch @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Description: Resolve issue with FTBFS on 32bit ppc platform + . + NoBarrier versions for Atomic64 can be implemented on PPC32 +Origin: http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/issues/detail?id=431 + +Index: google-perftools/src/base/atomicops-internals-linuxppc.h +=================================================================== +--- google-perftools.orig/src/base/atomicops-internals-linuxppc.h 2012-06-27 09:25:34.879532000 +0100 ++++ google-perftools/src/base/atomicops-internals-linuxppc.h 2012-07-04 21:18:36.974406885 +0100 +@@ -369,14 +369,20 @@ + return *ptr; + } + +-#ifdef __PPC64__ +- +-// 64-bit Versions. +- ++// NoBarrier versions for Atomic64 can be implemented on PPC32 + inline void NoBarrier_Store(volatile Atomic64 *ptr, Atomic64 value) { + *ptr = value; + } + ++inline Atomic64 NoBarrier_Load(volatile const Atomic64 *ptr) { ++ return *ptr; ++} ++ ++ ++#ifdef __PPC64__ ++ ++// 64-bit Versions. ++ + inline void Acquire_Store(volatile Atomic64 *ptr, Atomic64 value) { + *ptr = value; + // This can't be _lwsync(); we need to order the immediately +@@ -390,10 +396,6 @@ + *ptr = value; + } + +-inline Atomic64 NoBarrier_Load(volatile const Atomic64 *ptr) { +- return *ptr; +-} +- + inline Atomic64 Acquire_Load(volatile const Atomic64 *ptr) { + Atomic64 value = *ptr; + _lwsync();
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 680729-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Daigo Moriwaki <daigo@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#680729: unblock: google-perftools/2.0-3
- From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:57:38 +0200
- Message-id: <20120717175738.GB7369@radis.cristau.org>
- In-reply-to: <06c463d3c36f7ec97a2ec63573460d9a@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org>
- References: <20120708094649.5704.95404.reportbug@becrux.sgtpepper.net> <06c463d3c36f7ec97a2ec63573460d9a@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org>
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 19:50:23 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 08.07.2012 10:46, Daigo Moriwaki wrote: > >The package in unstable fixes the following issues, which would be > >of use > >for users and us. > > Unfortunately, unblocking it is not possible at the moment. > > > * debian/patches/20120708_ppc_ftbfs.patch: Imported Ubuntu's > >patch, fixing > > a build failure on powerpc, derived from the upstream: > > http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/issues/detail?id=431 > > Thanks to James Page <james.page@ubuntu.com>. (Closes: #680305) > > That's not grounds for an exception on its own, due to the fact that > the package didn't previously build on powerpc. > > > * debian/control: Bumped up to libunwind8-dev for Build-Depends. > > (Closes: #680724) > > libunwind8-dev isn't in wheezy, and is really unlikely to be (see > the separate thread on your request for that). Even with an > unblock, the package wouldn't migrate due to the libunwind8 > dependency being unsatisfiable in testing. > Therefore closing. Cheers, JulienAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---