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

Bug#865493: cross-gcc-dev in stable does not apply to gcc-6 in stable

On 2017-07-21 12:47 -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> writes:
> > Package: cross-gcc-dev
> > Version: 113
> > Severity: important
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > The cross-gcc-dev that made it into the stable release (113) was
> > prepared against gcc-6 6.3.0-2, whereas the version of gcc that ended
> > up released was 6.3.0-18, and one patch does not apply, rendering the
> > package largely useless. (I didn't check gcc-5/7)
> >
> > A small update is needed to
> > gcc-6/0010-gcc-.-base-dependencies-reverted-to-gcc-VER-base-whe.patch
> Thanks for the report, Wookey. It looks like I already fixed this in
> cross-gcc-dev=128. This doesn't affect stable, obviously. Did you want
> to deal with that somehow, like in a backport, or something? 

Yes. I filed a bug to do that. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866537

Ah, which I see has a response that didn't get mailed to me.
cross-gcc has now moved on to v135. Does that still work in stable, or
do I have to persuade the stretch-updates people to use a version no
longer in unstable? Your recent changes may only be for gcc-7, so
maybe the current version does work on the gcc-6 in stable, which has
no gcc-7. That would simplify things.

Guess I should check. 

> My feeling
> is that it isn't even close to being worth the effort, but I'm open to
> other opinions.

It's necessary for crossing gcc for non-standard arches in stable
(which is quite obscure, but we should have it working as we've done
the work and it's a tiny fix). I've been doing exactly this for
arm64ilp32 using rebootstrap - (currently using a local repo with a
modified veriosn of cross-gcc). So yes I think it's worth fixing, and
I'll do the work for it.

But if you could confirm which versions will work correctly with the
gcc-6 in stable that would be helpful.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: