Bug#915811: marked as done (nmu: pocl_1.1-7)
Your message dated Sat, 5 Jan 2019 11:46:43 +0100
with message-id <501777a0-6239-70c8-f7e6-8ed2394883de@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#915811: nmu: pocl_1.1-7
has caused the Debian Bug report #915811,
regarding nmu: pocl_1.1-7
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.)
--
915811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915811
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: nmu: pocl_1.1-7
- From: Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 01:21:43 +0100
- Message-id: <154414210336.18074.11647583672987406679.reportbug@zam581.zam.kfa-juelich.de>
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu pocl_1.1-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with latest gcc to collect symbol updates."
These rebuilds will fail due to changed symbols ... which is a bit
strange since the package was already built with gcc-8.
Such symbol changes could affect other packages as well.
e.g. on amd64
- _ZTISt19_Sp_make_shared_tag@Base 0.10
+ _ZZNSt19_Sp_make_shared_tag5_S_tiEvE5__tag@Base 1.1-7
Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 04/01/2019 17:25, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2019-01-04 10:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> On 07/12/2018 01:21, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: binnmu
>>>
>>> nmu pocl_1.1-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with latest gcc to collect symbol updates."
>>>
>>> These rebuilds will fail due to changed symbols ... which is a bit
>>> strange since the package was already built with gcc-8.
>>> Such symbol changes could affect other packages as well.
>>
>> If the rebuilds will fail, how's a binNMU going to help? If you meant something
>> else by 'these rebuilds will fail', then now there is #916024 so I suppose a
>> binNMU is no longer appropriate in any case.
>
> The binNMUs will fail, but the build logs will contain the symbol
> information updates needed to fix #916024. I'll follow up with a
> sourceful upload, not two.
Fair enough. Scheduled.
Emilio
--- End Message ---
Reply to: