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

Bug#956728: openjdk-11: Please enablel buildwatch.sh on sh4



Source: openjdk-11
Version: 11.0.7+9-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-superh@lists.debian.org
Usertags: sh4

Hello!

I just noticed that sh4 is missing in the list of architectures for which
the buildwatch.sh script is enabled. This explains why the builds on sh4
sometimes time out.

Can you enable the buildwatch.sh script on openjdk-{11,13,14,15} to address
this issue?

This should do it:

--- debian/rules.orig   2020-03-26 08:33:35.000000000 +0100
+++ debian/rules        2020-04-14 20:03:01.302882997 +0200
@@ -993,7 +993,7 @@
 
 stamps/build: stamps/configure
        @echo '========== $@ =========='
-ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha armel armhf ia64 m68k mips mipsel mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpcspe riscv64 s390x sparc sparc64))
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha armel armhf ia64 m68k mips mipsel mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpcspe riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc sparc64))
        sh -c 'sh debian/buildwatch.sh $(CURDIR)/$(builddir) &'
 endif
        if $(EXTRA_BUILD_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(builddir) $(build_target); then \

Thanks,
Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
--- debian/rules.orig	2020-03-26 08:33:35.000000000 +0100
+++ debian/rules	2020-04-14 20:03:01.302882997 +0200
@@ -993,7 +993,7 @@
 
 stamps/build: stamps/configure
 	@echo '========== $@ =========='
-ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha armel armhf ia64 m68k mips mipsel mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpcspe riscv64 s390x sparc sparc64))
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha armel armhf ia64 m68k mips mipsel mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpcspe riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc sparc64))
 	sh -c 'sh debian/buildwatch.sh $(CURDIR)/$(builddir) &'
 endif
 	if $(EXTRA_BUILD_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(builddir) $(build_target); then \

Reply to: