#ubuntu-toolchain 2006-03-30
<jbailey> doko: Got bored this morning and decided to take out glibc bugs? =)
<doko> jbailey: it's afternoon ;-P
<jbailey> =)
#ubuntu-toolchain 2006-04-01
<infinity> doko: Can you look at http://librarian.launchpad.net/1840556/buildlog_ubuntu-dapper-hppa.ept_1.91ubuntu2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
<infinity> doko: And yes, that's reproducible.  ept's configure script on hppa does that on every build attempt.
<infinity> doko: Argh.  And when I say "that's reproducible", I mean "It happened to me twice in a row".. Of course, on a third try now, it worked. :/
<doko> jbailey, infinity: glibc ping
<jbailey> doko: What's up?
<doko> looking at glibc which patches we miss from unstable, and the differences in patch names
<jbailey> Yes, Debian hasn't synced to new patch names.
<jbailey> But unstable is also now using quilt.
<doko> ;-P
<jbailey> They have the plans to, I don't have the spare time to push it right now.
<jbailey> Is there a particular bug you're chasing, or just general maintenance.
<doko> anyway, could you help in looking, which patches we do miss?
<doko> no, general, because I'm tired chasing bugs that are fixed in unstable :-(
<jbailey> Has there been more than just the hppa one?
<doko> Jeff, I don't know, and I really do not _want_ to know.
<jbailey> Right.  The thing is that you would've had this bug with hppa anyway.
<jbailey> I used the patch that Carlos O'Donnell said he wanted on Ubuntu.
<doko> ok, so how can we ease the comparision?
<jbailey> I just need to finish pushing the rename into Debian.
<doko> that would be cool
<jbailey> But since they're not using dpatch anymore, even an md5sum listing won't help.
<doko> could we change to quilt as well?
<jbailey> For dapper?  I'd rather not.
<doko> why? it would ease the comparision, even during the maintainance period
<jbailey> Just because it's more changes to core infrastructure.
<jbailey> The change to quilt isn't harmful in anyway, but it's more things changing.
<doko> but it lowers the maintainance effort
<jbailey> Does it?  Once we release, we're unlikely to ever compare against unstable.
<doko> which other things are changing?
<jbailey> The locales separation, moving timezones out, etc.
<doko> right, but I think, that is addressed by the new naming of patches?
<jbailey> I don't have a strong objection to doing quilt.  I'm just not generally in favour of changing things at this point that aren't going to clearly give benefit.
<doko> ok, so we come back to the comparision of the current state ...
<jbailey> Sure, which I can do.  I spent most of today on the telephone though.
<jbailey> Tomorrow seems more likely for that sort of work.
<jbailey> Denis isn't around, I can't ask him about the patch name change.
<doko> I did not mean, that you have to do it. I'm trying to do it with very low effort
<doko> but Denis is doing locales only?
<jbailey> Denis is the one who implemented the quilt setup.
<jbailey> He and I were the ones talking about the patch rename.
<doko> ahh, ok
<jbailey> I've pinged aurel32 to ask him.
<jbailey> drow had no objection.
<jbailey> I haven't seen gotom online in a while.
<jbailey> pb doesn't usually get involved at that level.
<doko> it would be nice if you could do the comparision between current dapper and unstable
<jbailey> I did say that I would do that.
<jbailey> Hopefully tomorrow.
<jbailey> I don't have major calls scheduled for tomorrow which is nice.
<doko> btw, do my amd64 changes make sense?
<jbailey> With the gconv stuff?
<jbailey> I think so, yeah.
<doko> somebody really should convert glibc to some standard cdbs/debhelper stuff ;-P
<jbailey> glibc does use debhelper. =)
<doko> bah
<jbailey> That was one of the big changes that I made when I first started.
<jbailey> The glibc package in Ubuntu even uses DH_COMPAT=5 =)
<jbailey> And much of the glibc rules file was the prototype for cdbs.
<jbailey> But it needed multibuild.
<jbailey> The cdbs2 code might be suitable for glibc and gcc.
<doko> where is cdbs2?
#ubuntu-toolchain 2006-04-02
<jbailey> https://launchpad.net/people/jbailey/+branch/cdbs/cdbs-trunk
<doko> I'll have a look. Does this include docs? :-P
<jbailey> "debian/rules help" will work.
<doko> will or does ;-P
<jbailey> I think does now. =)
<doko> ahh, the gconv thing doesn't work for the 32 bit archs building 64bit packages
<jbailey> Oh?  Interesting.
<jbailey> I didn't review more than the changelog.
<doko> maybe just needs more additions in debian/sysdeps
#ubuntu-toolchain 2007-03-26
* Starting logfile irclogs/ubuntu-toolchain.log
<doko> fabbione: if you have any idea about  http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4267 let me know; seen on the feisty-plusone chroot on faure
<fabbione> doko: can you make the sources for the new toolchain available somewhere public for davem to fetch?
<fabbione> doko: and please can you look into that linking problem i asked you last week? we really don 
<doko> deb http://people.ubuntu.com/~doko/ubuntu/ toolchain-test/
<fabbione> we really don't want to know that we need to rebuild feisty 3 days before release
<fabbione> ok thanks
<doko> on my list for this week, together with OOo
<Dvalin> ahoi
#ubuntu-toolchain 2008-03-30
<AutumnCat> Hello everyone. I want to build deb packages from the gcc source package ( which is obtained using "apt-get source gcc-4.2" ). But I only want to build i386, with C/C++ only. How should I do this ?
<AutumnCat> Anybody here??
