Debian Bug report logs - #428582
xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:23:15 -0700

Package: xulrunner
Version: 1.8.1.4-2
Severity: serious

Hi Mike,

The latest version of xulrunner is failing to build on mips and mipsel with
the following error:

[...]
c++  -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -Wall -Wconversion -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Woverloaded-virtual -Wsynth -Wno-ctor-dtor-privacy -Wno-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -fshort-wchar -pthread -pipe  -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -fPIC -shared -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-h,libxul.so.0d -o libxul.so.0d  nsStaticXULComponents.o -Wl,--as-needed   -Wl,--whole-archive ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_compat.a ../../dist/lib/libunicharutil_s.a ../../dist/lib/libucvutil_s.a ../../dist/lib/libgkgfx.a ../../dist/lib/libgfxshared_s.a ../../dist/lib/libxulapp_s.a ../../dist/lib/libgtkxtbin.a ../../dist/lib/libgfxpsshar.a ../../dist/lib/libjsj.a ../../dist/lib/libjavaxpcom.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpcom_compat_c.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpconnect.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnecko.a ../../dist/lib/components/libuconv.a ../../dist/lib/components/libi18n.a ../../dist/lib/components/libjar50.a ../../dist/lib/components/libpref.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcaps.a ../../dist/lib/components/librdf.a ../../dist/lib/components/libhtmlpars.a ../../dist/lib/components/libimglib2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgkplugin.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgklayout.a ../../dist/lib/components/libdocshell.a ../../dist/lib/components/libembedcomponents.a ../../dist/lib/components/libwebbrwsr.a ../../dist/lib/components/libeditor.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnsappshell.a ../../dist/lib/components/libtxmgr.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcomposer.a ../../dist/lib/components/libchrome.a ../../dist/lib/components/libmozfind.a ../../dist/lib/components/libappcomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcommandlines.a ../../dist/lib/components/libtoolkitcomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpinstall.a ../../dist/lib/components/libjsd.a ../../dist/lib/components/libstoragecomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libmork.a ../../dist/lib/components/libucvmath.a ../../dist/lib/components/libwidget_gtk2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnecko2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgfxps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgfx_gtk.a ../../dist/lib/components/liboji.a ../../dist/lib/components/libaccessibility.a ../../dist/lib/components/libremoteservice.a  -Wl,--no-whole-archive -Wl,-rpath-link,../../dist/bin -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib -ljpeg -lpng  -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs  -lz   -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -lXinerama  -lX11   -lXft -lfontconfig   -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lfontconfig -lXext -lXrender -lXinerama -lXi -lXrandr -lXcursor -lXfixes -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -lX11 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0   -lXt -lfreetype -lz -lpangoxft-1.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0   -lcairo   -ldl -lm     
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:2778
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:10311
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDeque.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsDeque.cpp:163: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsDeque::Empty()'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDeque.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsDeque.cpp:163: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsDeque::Empty()'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsObserverList.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsObserverList.cpp:71: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsPersistentProperties.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsPersistentProperties.cpp:348: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsSupportsArray.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsSupportsArray.cpp:669: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsArray.o): In function `nsArray': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsArray.h:75: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsCOMArray_base::nsCOMArray_base(nsCOMArray_base const&)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDirectoryService.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsDirectoryService.cpp:534: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsLocalFileCommon.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsLocalFileCommon.cpp:103: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `PL_strncpyz'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsFastLoadFile.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsFastLoadFile.cpp:795: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(plevent.o): In function `PL_RevokeEvents': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/threads/plevent.c:555: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `PL_MapEvents'
../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(plevent.o): In function `PL_DestroyEventQueue': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/threads/plevent.c:318: additional relocation overflows omitted from the output
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [libxul.so.0d] Error 1
[...]

Full build logs can be found at
<http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=xulrunner&arch=mips&ver=1.8.1.4-2&stamp=1181491345>
and
<http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=xulrunner&arch=mipsel&ver=1.8.1.4-2&stamp=1181622070>.

Since 1.8.1.4-1 built successfully on both archs, and there are no changes
in -2 that seem to explain the build failure, it's possible that this is the
result of a toolchain regression; gcc-4.1 4.1.2-11 was uploaded Jun 1, with
a changelog entry of "Update to SVN 20070601", and this was the version of
g++-4.1 used in at least the mips build.  You might want to talk to
debian-mips and/or debian-gcc about this.

It would be nice if this could be fixed quickly, as there are a number of
library transitions that are potentially blocked on xulrunner.

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

Message #10 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org

Cc: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:58:33 +0200

Hi,

I'm following up here a bug report against xulrunner: It failed to
build on mips and mipsel. Here is what Steve Langasek has to say about
the issue:

> Since 1.8.1.4-1 built successfully on both archs, and there are no changes
> in -2 that seem to explain the build failure, it's possible that this is the
> result of a toolchain regression; gcc-4.1 4.1.2-11 was uploaded Jun 1, with
> a changelog entry of "Update to SVN 20070601", and this was the version of
> g++-4.1 used in at least the mips build.  You might want to talk to
> debian-mips and/or debian-gcc about this.

Relevant log is:
> [...]
> c++  -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -Wall -Wconversion -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Woverloaded-virtual -Wsynth -Wno-ctor-dtor-privacy -Wno-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -fshort-wchar -pthread -pipe  -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -fPIC -shared -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-h,libxul.so.0d -o libxul.so.0d  nsStaticXULComponents.o -Wl,--as-needed   -Wl,--whole-archive ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_compat.a ../../dist/lib/libunicharutil_s.a ../../dist/lib/libucvutil_s.a ../../dist/lib/libgkgfx.a ../../dist/lib/libgfxshared_s.a ../../dist/lib/libxulapp_s.a ../../dist/lib/libgtkxtbin.a ../../dist/lib/libgfxpsshar.a ../../dist/lib/libjsj.a ../../dist/lib/libjavaxpcom.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpcom_compat_c.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpconnect.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnecko.a ../../dist/lib/components/libuconv.a ../../dist/lib/components/libi18n.a ../../dist/lib/components/libjar50.a ../../dist/lib/components/libpref.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcaps.a ../../dist/lib/components/librdf.a ../../dist/lib/components/libhtmlpars.a ../../dist/lib/components/libimglib2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgkplugin.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgklayout.a ../../dist/lib/components/libdocshell.a ../../dist/lib/components/libembedcomponents.a ../../dist/lib/components/libwebbrwsr.a ../../dist/lib/components/libeditor.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnsappshell.a ../../dist/lib/components/libtxmgr.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcomposer.a ../../dist/lib/components/libchrome.a ../../dist/lib/components/libmozfind.a ../../dist/lib/components/libappcomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libcommandlines.a ../../dist/lib/components/libtoolkitcomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libxpinstall.a ../../dist/lib/components/libjsd.a ../../dist/lib/components/libstoragecomps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libmork.a ../../dist/lib/components/libucvmath.a ../../dist/lib/components/libwidget_gtk2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libnecko2.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgfxps.a ../../dist/lib/components/libgfx_gtk.a ../../dist/lib/components/liboji.a ../../dist/lib/components/libaccessibility.a ../../dist/lib/components/libremoteservice.a  -Wl,--no-whole-archive -Wl,-rpath-link,../../dist/bin -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib -ljpeg -lpng  -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs  -lz   -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -lXinerama  -lX11   -lXft -lfontconfig   -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lfontconfig -lXext -lXrender -lXinerama -lXi -lXrandr -lXcursor -lXfixes -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -lX11 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0   -lXt -lfreetype -lz -lpangoxft-1.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0   -lcairo   -ldl -lm     
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:7488
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:2778
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426 assertion fail ../../bfd/elfxx-mips.c:10311
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDeque.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsDeque.cpp:163: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsDeque::Empty()'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDeque.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsDeque.cpp:163: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsDeque::Empty()'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsObserverList.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsObserverList.cpp:71: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsPersistentProperties.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsPersistentProperties.cpp:348: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsSupportsArray.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsSupportsArray.cpp:669: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsArray.o): In function `nsArray': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/ds/nsArray.h:75: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `nsCOMArray_base::nsCOMArray_base(nsCOMArray_base const&)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsDirectoryService.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsDirectoryService.cpp:534: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsLocalFileCommon.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsLocalFileCommon.cpp:103: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `PL_strncpyz'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(nsFastLoadFile.o):/build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/io/nsFastLoadFile.cpp:795: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `NS_NewISupportsArray(nsISupportsArray**)'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(plevent.o): In function `PL_RevokeEvents': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/threads/plevent.c:555: relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_CALL16 against `PL_MapEvents'
> ../../dist/lib/libxpcom_core.a(plevent.o): In function `PL_DestroyEventQueue': /build/buildd/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/xpcom/threads/plevent.c:318: additional relocation overflows omitted from the output
> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[3]: *** [libxul.so.0d] Error 1
> [...]
> 
Full build logs can be found at
<http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=xulrunner&arch=mips&ver=1.8.1.4-2&stamp=1181491345>
and
<http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=xulrunner&arch=mipsel&ver=1.8.1.4-2&stamp=1181622070>.

Does anyone have an idea about what has happened to the toolchain, and
if this should be reassigned appropriately ?

Thanks

Mike

Message #15 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org

Cc: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:26:26 +0200

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:58:33PM +0200, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm following up here a bug report against xulrunner: It failed to
> build on mips and mipsel. Here is what Steve Langasek has to say about
> the issue:
> 
> > Since 1.8.1.4-1 built successfully on both archs, and there are no changes
> > in -2 that seem to explain the build failure, it's possible that this is the
> > result of a toolchain regression; gcc-4.1 4.1.2-11 was uploaded Jun 1, with
> > a changelog entry of "Update to SVN 20070601", and this was the version of
> > g++-4.1 used in at least the mips build.  You might want to talk to
> > debian-mips and/or debian-gcc about this.

FWIW, the only mips related change i can see in gcc-4.1 between -8 and -11 is
debian/patches/pr20218-mips.dpatch.

Mike

Message #20 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:48 +0200

Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:58:33PM +0200, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm following up here a bug report against xulrunner: It failed to
>> build on mips and mipsel. Here is what Steve Langasek has to say about
>> the issue:
>>
>>> Since 1.8.1.4-1 built successfully on both archs, and there are no changes
>>> in -2 that seem to explain the build failure, it's possible that this is the
>>> result of a toolchain regression; gcc-4.1 4.1.2-11 was uploaded Jun 1, with
>>> a changelog entry of "Update to SVN 20070601", and this was the version of
>>> g++-4.1 used in at least the mips build.  You might want to talk to
>>> debian-mips and/or debian-gcc about this.
> 
> FWIW, the only mips related change i can see in gcc-4.1 between -8 and -11 is
> debian/patches/pr20218-mips.dpatch.
> 

It may not be a mips specific problem. The glibc fails to build on hppa
when switching from gcc-4.1 -8 to -11 (see #428509). The changes in gcc
that trigger the failure (currently reduced to about 300 lines) are not
hppa specific. Maybe the two problems are related.

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Message #25 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org>

Cc: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:05:00 +0200

Aurelien Jarno writes:
> Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:58:33PM +0200, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm following up here a bug report against xulrunner: It failed to
> >> build on mips and mipsel. Here is what Steve Langasek has to say about
> >> the issue:
> >>
> >>> Since 1.8.1.4-1 built successfully on both archs, and there are no changes
> >>> in -2 that seem to explain the build failure, it's possible that this is the
> >>> result of a toolchain regression; gcc-4.1 4.1.2-11 was uploaded Jun 1, with
> >>> a changelog entry of "Update to SVN 20070601", and this was the version of
> >>> g++-4.1 used in at least the mips build.  You might want to talk to
> >>> debian-mips and/or debian-gcc about this.
> > 
> > FWIW, the only mips related change i can see in gcc-4.1 between -8 and -11 is
> > debian/patches/pr20218-mips.dpatch.
> > 
> 
> It may not be a mips specific problem. The glibc fails to build on hppa
> when switching from gcc-4.1 -8 to -11 (see #428509). The changes in gcc
> that trigger the failure (currently reduced to about 300 lines) are not
> hppa specific. Maybe the two problems are related.

In http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2007-June/031712.html
John David Anglin identified the backport for 20218 as cause for the
failure for #428509.

#428582 isn't seen anymore on FC's 4.1 branch, but with a different
configuration for xulrunner.
see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367208

Message #30 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:46:44 +0200

Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
miss another backport from the trunk.

Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
"solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
for the faster architectures.

  Matthias

Message #38 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:02:45 +0200

Mike Hommey writes:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > 
> > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> > for the faster architectures.
> 
> What part of
> Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
> libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner
> 
> makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
> (libmozjs-dev being arch: all)

please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot

Message #43 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:57:41 +0200

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> miss another backport from the trunk.
> 
> Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> for the faster architectures.

What part of
Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner

makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
(libmozjs-dev being arch: all)

Mike

Message #54 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:12:37 +0200

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > 
> > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> > > for the faster architectures.
> > 
> > What part of
> > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
> > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner
> > 
> > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
> > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all)
> 
> please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot

All I see is:
  gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be installed
  libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be installed
  libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be installed
              Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be installed
              Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed

And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of
any trouble. See
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d

Mike

Message #62 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:21:37 +0200

Mike Hommey writes:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > 
> > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> > > > for the faster architectures.
> > > 
> > > What part of
> > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
> > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner
> > > 
> > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
> > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all)
> > 
> > please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot
> 
> All I see is:
>   gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be installed
>   libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be installed
>   libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be installed
>               Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be installed
>               Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed
> 
> And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of
> any trouble. See
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d

Package: libxul0d
Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~)

Message #70 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:26:46 +0200

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:21:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> > > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> > > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> > > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> > > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> > > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> > > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> > > > > for the faster architectures.
> > > > 
> > > > What part of
> > > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
> > > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner
> > > > 
> > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
> > > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all)
> > > 
> > > please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot
> > 
> > All I see is:
> >   gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be installed
> >   libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be installed
> >   libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be installed
> >               Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be installed
> >               Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed
> > 
> > And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of
> > any trouble. See
> > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d
> 
> Package: libxul0d
> Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~)

Why didn't you tell straight that it was libxul0d dependencies that were
the problem ? And more importantly, why didn't you file a bug report,
since you seem so bothered ?

Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner
upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive
anyways...

Mike

Message #78 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:34:24 +0200

* Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> [2007-06-13 20:46]:
> Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> miss another backport from the trunk.

FWIW, xulrunner currently doesn't build with gcc-snapshot.  I have not
investigated whether this is a bug in the compiler or xulrunner.  The
error I see (on amd64) is:

gcc   -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wno-long-long -Wall -pipe -pthread -pipe  -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -o js js.o  -Wl,--as-needed    -lm -ldl -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib  -ldl -lm      -L. -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -lreadline
js.o: In function `GetLine':
/build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:149: undefined reference to `readline'
/build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:153: undefined reference to `add_history'
/usr/bin/ld: js: hidden symbol `readline' isn't defined
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output

Does #428582 only occur on mips?  If so, I can try to build xulrunner
with gcc-snapshot on mips.  But I believe the failure I mention above
happens before the failure in #428582, so I'm not sure building it on
mips will show anything useful.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Message #86 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Cc: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:47:16 +0100

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> [2007-06-13 20:46]:
> > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > miss another backport from the trunk.

> FWIW, xulrunner currently doesn't build with gcc-snapshot.  I have not
> investigated whether this is a bug in the compiler or xulrunner.  The
> error I see (on amd64) is:

> gcc   -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wno-long-long -Wall -pipe -pthread -pipe  -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -o js js.o  -Wl,--as-needed    -lm -ldl -L../../dist/bin -L../../dist/lib  -ldl -lm      -L. -L../../dist/bin -lmozjs -L/usr/lib -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -lreadline
> js.o: In function `GetLine':
> /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:149: undefined reference to `readline'
> /build/tbm/xulrunner-1.8.1.4/js/src/js.c:153: undefined reference to `add_history'
> /usr/bin/ld: js: hidden symbol `readline' isn't defined
> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output

> Does #428582 only occur on mips?  If so, I can try to build xulrunner
> with gcc-snapshot on mips.  But I believe the failure I mention above
> happens before the failure in #428582, so I'm not sure building it on
> mips will show anything useful.

The bug does not happen on alpha, amd64, hppa, ia64, powerpc, s390, or
sparc.

arm built the most recent version of xulrunner with gcc-4.1 4.1.2-8, so it's
unknown whether it's affected.

m68k fails when building with gcc-4.1 4.1.2-12 with the error you listed
above.

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

Message #91 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:56:26 +0200

Mike Hommey writes:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:21:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:45PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> > > > > > strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> > > > > > "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> > > > > > manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> > > > > > release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> > > > > > understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> > > > > > dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> > > > > > for the faster architectures.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What part of
> > > > > Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4), libxul0d (<< 1.8.1.4-2.1~), libnss3-dev,
> > > > > libnspr4-dev, libmozjs-dev (= 1.8.1.4-2), xulrunner
> > > > > 
> > > > > makes libxul-dev uninstallable when indep and arch packages mismatch ?
> > > > > (libmozjs-dev being arch: all)
> > > > 
> > > > please check the build logs at http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-snapshot
> > > 
> > > All I see is:
> > >   gcj-4.1: Depends: libgcj7-dev (= 4.1.2-12) but it is not going to be installed
> > >   libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.12-2) but it is not going to be installed
> > >   libxul-dev: Depends: libxul0d (>= 1.8.1.4) but it is not going to be installed
> > >               Depends: libxul0d (< 1.8.1.4-2.1~) but it is not going to be installed
> > >               Depends: xulrunner but it is not going to be installed
> > > 
> > > And I still fail to see how libxul-dev dependencies are responsible of
> > > any trouble. See
> > > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=libxul0d
> > 
> > Package: libxul0d
> > Depends: ... libxul-common (>= 1.8.1.4-1), libxul-common (<< 1.8.1.4-1.1~)
> 
> Why didn't you tell straight that it was libxul0d dependencies that were
> the problem ? And more importantly, why didn't you file a bug report,
> since you seem so bothered ?

I did, but you did "solve" it by working around it, pointing out that
slow architectures are the problem but not xulrunner. Look back at the
report.

> Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner
> upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive
> anyways...

I very much doubt that for subsubminor version changes. And there's
still the possibility to make these packages architecture dependent.

  Matthias

Message #99 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:28:11 +0200

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:56:26PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Anyways, changing this won't solve the problem with new xulrunner
> > upstream releases... and the real problem is still on the ftp archive
> > anyways...
> 
> I very much doubt that for subsubminor version changes. And there's
> still the possibility to make these packages architecture dependent.

Which packages ?

Mike

Message #107 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:55:53 +0200

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> miss another backport from the trunk.

Did someone check already ?

> Side note: gcc-snapshot currently cannot be built due to the too
> strict dependencies on the binary-indep packages; reported as #385793,
> "solved" by the xulrunner maintainers.  Please build the package
> manually first, or make the libxul-dev package installable even if the
> release number of the indep and arch packages mismatch.  I still don't
> understand what the xulrunner maintainers want to prove with the strict
> dependency, but that's definitely something which delays things, even
> for the faster architectures.

Can it be built with the new dependencies ?

Mike

Message #115 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:06:15 -0700

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > miss another backport from the trunk.

> Did someone check already ?

Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?

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

Message #123 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:27:20 +0100

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> 
> > Did someone check already ?
> 
> Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?

Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.


Thiemo

Message #131 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, 428582@bugs.debian.org, Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

Subject: Re: GCC 4.2 transition

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:12 +0200

* Matthias Klose (doko@cs.tu-berlin.de) [070720 12:49]:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be built
> > > > before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly yet,
> > > > and I am (still) waiting for an upstream comment on how to fix it.
> > 
> > > The change is done in unstable. Unstable have no security support.
> > > Should I assume you don't know how to properly build packages for a dist
> > > which is not unstable?
> > 
> > He might be referring to the fact that xulrunner has been out-of-date on
> > mips* for over a month now due to build failures that look like they are
> > probably a gcc bug, thereby preventing security fixes (and updates to 27
> > other significant packages) from reaching testing.
> 
> He was asked to report back results with a recent gcc-snapshot; did I
> miss an answer?

Yes.

http://bugs.debian.org/428582:
| Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
| with ICE. 



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Message #136 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@bigon.be>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:00:18 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

What the status of this bug? The package still FTBFS on mips and
prevents some other package to enter in testing (ie: pidgin).

Regards

Laurent Bigonville

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #141 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>

To: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

Cc: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:33:31 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[CC'd to debian-mips.]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > 
> > > Did someone check already ?
> > 
> > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?
> 
> Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
> with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.

Is there any news on this?  gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips),
and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems:
#441633).

Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or
gcc-snapshot and report back?

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #149 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>, 428582@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:37:59 +0200

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +0000, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote:
> [CC'd to debian-mips.]
> 
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > 
> > > > Did someone check already ?
> > > 
> > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?
> > 
> > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
> > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.
> 
> Is there any news on this?  gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips),
> and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems:
> #441633).
> 
> Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or
> gcc-snapshot and report back?

FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that
xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is,
xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems.

Mike

Message #157 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-mips@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:41:29 +0100

I notice gcc 3.3 and 3.4 are still availible in testing/unstable, could 
one of those be used to build xulrunner for mips?

Message #162 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:35:19 +0100

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +0000, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote:
> > [CC'd to debian-mips.]
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > 
> > > > > Did someone check already ?
> > > > 
> > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?
> > > 
> > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
> > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.
> > 
> > Is there any news on this?  gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips),
> > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems:
> > #441633).
> > 
> > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or
> > gcc-snapshot and report back?
> 
> FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that
> xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is,
> xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems.

It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot
with xulrunner.

Mike

Message #170 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:13:46 +0000

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +0000, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > [CC'd to debian-mips.]
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Did someone check already ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?
> > > > 
> > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
> > > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.
> > > 
> > > Is there any news on this?  gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips),
> > > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems:
> > > #441633).
> > > 
> > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or
> > > gcc-snapshot and report back?
> > 
> > FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that
> > xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is,
> > xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems.
> 
> It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot
> with xulrunner.

A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that
information.


Thiemo

Message #178 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>, 428582@bugs.debian.org, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 428582-submitter@bugs.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:10:55 +0100

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:13:46AM +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37:59AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:33:31AM +0000, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > > [CC'd to debian-mips.]
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:27:20PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Please recheck with the recent gcc-snapshot 20070613 upload. We may
> > > > > > > > miss another backport from the trunk.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Did someone check already ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Probably not; this discussion doesn't seem to be cc:ed to debian-mips?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
> > > > > with ICE. I hope to have time for it mid of next week.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there any news on this?  gcc-snapshot is fixed (it built on mips),
> > > > and gcc-4.2 is the default compiler (although it still has problems:
> > > > #441633).
> > > > 
> > > > Could someone check and see if xulrunner now builds with gcc-4.2 or
> > > > gcc-snapshot and report back?
> > > 
> > > FWIW, iceape failed to build with gcc-4.2 with the same exact error that
> > > xulrunner had, so xulrunner is likely to fail too. Note that as is,
> > > xulrunner can't build with gcc-4.2 due to other visibility problems.
> > 
> > It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot
> > with xulrunner.
> 
> A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that
> information.

So, could it be possible to reassign this bug to the proper package
(gcc ? binutils ?) and mark it fixed for the appropriate version ?

Mike

Message #186 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:11:35 -0400

reassign 428582 binutils
found 428582 2.18-1
fixed 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1
thanks


> So, could it be possible to reassign this bug to the proper package
> (gcc ? binutils ?) and mark it fixed for the appropriate version ?

Done.

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

Message #197 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:49:22 +0000

reassign 428582 binutils
notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1
thanks

Mike Hommey wrote:
[snip]
> > > It seems iceape and iceweasel finally built on mips. I'll give a shot
> > > with xulrunner.
> > 
> > A testbuild succeeded for me, I missed to update the bug with that
> > information.
> 
> So, could it be possible to reassign this bug to the proper package
> (gcc ? binutils ?) and mark it fixed for the appropriate version ?
> 
> Mike

Message #206 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:07:38 +0100

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:54:07PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
> 
> > reassign 428582 binutils
> Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow
> Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `binutils'.
> 
> > notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1
> Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow
> Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1.

Maybe you wanted to mark it fixed instead of removing a "found"?


Kurt

Message #211 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#428582: xulrunner: please recheck with gcc-snapshot 20070613

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:44:44 +0000

fixed 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1
thanks

Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:54:07PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
> > 
> > > reassign 428582 binutils
> > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow
> > Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `binutils'.
> > 
> > > notfound 428582 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1
> > Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow
> > Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18.1~cvs20071027-1.
> 
> Maybe you wanted to mark it fixed instead of removing a "found"?

Indeed. I got confused because the bugs.d.o reference card doesn't
mention fixed as a valid command.


Thiemo

Message #224 received at 428582@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: 428582@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Luk Claes <luk@ries.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Processed: notfound 428582 in 2.18-1

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:49:27 +0200

On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 04:33:22PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
> 
> > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.26
> > notfound 428582 2.18-1
> Bug#428582: xulrunner_1.8.1.4-2 (mips/unstable): FTBFS: relocation overflow
> Bug no longer marked as found in version 2.18-1.

Did you want to do a found 428582 2.18-1?


Kurt

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.