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

Re: Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t



On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:55:59PM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> On 2024-03-12 11:03, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > In the medium term, cargo needs re-bootstrapping on the affected
> > architectures (armel and armhf, plus a bunch of -ports architectures
> > where as far as I can see cargo was never available in the past) -
> > that's #1065787, and Steve already replied to that bug describing how
> > Ubuntu did this.

> I don't think Ubuntu actually fixed cargo yet, at least if the data in
> UDD is reliable -- and if I'm looking in the right place. :-)

> udd=> select source,version,date from ubuntu_upload_history where source='cargo' order by date desc limit 2;
>  source |                  version                   |          date          
> --------+--------------------------------------------+------------------------
>  cargo  | 0.67.1+ds0ubuntu0.libgit2-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 | 2023-07-05 09:36:28+00
>  cargo  | 0.67.1+ds0ubuntu0.libgit2-0ubuntu0.22.04.2 | 2023-07-05 09:36:27+00
> (2 rows)

cargo in Ubuntu is built from the rustc source package.

> Maybe when Steve mentioned the work done in Ubuntu on
> https://bugs.debian.org/1065787#22 he meant other packages?
> 
> > Is there a porter who can take responsibility for that?
> 
> I did manage to get cargo to build in a armhf chroot by manually
> installing the various deps, see the build artifacts at
> https://people.debian.org/~ema/cargo/. I can work on armel next. The
> tests are green but maybe there's some more meaningful validation we can
> do before uploading? Anyone from debian-rust has ideas or comments?
> 

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: