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

Bug#699899: marked as done (unblock: clang/1:3.0-6.1)

Your message dated Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:22:36 +0000
with message-id <1360563756.24260.6.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#699899: tpu: clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0
has caused the Debian Bug report #699899,
regarding unblock: clang/1:3.0-6.1
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.)


-- 
699899: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699899
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: tpu

Hello,

I would like to upload clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0 to testing-proposed-updates
to fix #693208 in wheezy. At the moment, 3.0-6 is in testing, 3.1-8 is
in unstable.

#693208 is about clang failing to produce a trivial binarey on armhf. I
have verified that the fixes work in an armhf qemu chroot. All patches
have been merged upstream, too, so I am fairly confident they do the
right thing.

Since by now we have gcc-4.7 in Debian, I also needed to apply this
patch from upstream, otherwise clang segfaults when building software
(e.g. i3-wm): http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=11926#c17

The debdiff is attached.

May I go ahead?

-- 
Best regards,
Michael

Attachment: clang.debdiff
Description: Binary data


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 16:08 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 16:46 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> > > Given that 3.1 appears never to have managed to build on several
> > > architectures in unstable (a regression in each case) and that I assume
> > > the intention would be to introduce 3.2 to unstable after the release,
> > > then if Sylvestre's not opposed reintroducing a fixed 3.0 to sid
> > > temporarily may be the sanest answer.
> > I just uploaded 1:3.0-6.1 to unstable. I presume you want me to close
> > this bug and open an unblock request instead, right? :)
> 
> Nah, let's just re-use this one; thanks.

Unblocked; thanks.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: