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

Re: State of fpc in sid

On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 22:45 +0100, peter green wrote:
> Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I've committed fixes of this bug, can you please upload?
> Just thought i'd keep you informed.
> I uploaded with my changes and your changes. I also had to make a couple 
> of follow uploads to deal with a couple of small but build-breaking 
> issues, i'll try and get those follow up uploads into svn soon.
I'd prefer to have patches committed to svn, prior to upload, then build
from svn (using svn-buildpackage for example). I usually build each
commit separately before committing it, then once I want to upload to
mentors, build from a clean checkout. But I understand that some times
one wants to go fast, however this could lead to missing tags.
> Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough with the uploads and the chroots on 
> the sparc buildd were updated to the new binutils (which makes versions 
> of the fpc package prior to 2.6.2-3 uninstallable) before I managed to 
That's really no chance.
> get the new upload in. This will mean a manual build on sparc is needed. 
> Unfortunately the sparc porterbox seems to be out of disc space at the 
> moment and requests in #debian-sparc for someone to build it manually 
> went unanswered. I'm currently looking into qemu and if that fails I 
> will look into if  a sparc box I had remote access to ages ago can be 
> made available again. I want to get this into testing ASAP to minimise 
> the chance of problems for any derivatives that pull from testing.
I have a sparc station at home. I did not boot it for ages and I need to
update it, but if really required I could do it.
> powerpc64 will also need manual building for the same reason. Since it 
> is not an official architecture I don't plan to do that building, ccing 
> the guy who filed the most recent ppc64 bug report to inform him of this.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: