Bug#805893: Please confirm the patch.

[Ghislain Vaillant]

This part of the patch still sounds weird to me:

ifneq (,$(filter mips64%el mips64%el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))

The repetition of "mips64%el" looks unnecessary to me.

Besides, since the aim is to catch all future mips64* architectures,
shouldn't  this be enough:

ifneq (,$(filter mips64%,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))

Unless I am missing something here. Let me know what you think.

Ghis


2015-11-30 8:00 GMT+00:00 YunQiang Su <wzssyqa at gmail.com>:

> I tested this patch. It works well for mips64el.
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM, YunQiang Su <wzssyqa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> This is the relevant portion of the proposed patch:
> >>
> >>>  ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH),ppc64el)
> >>>  DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mno-altivec
> >>> +DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mno-altivec
> >>> +endif
> >>> +# Build without Altivec to prevent FTBFS on ppc64el.
> >>> +ifneq (,$(filter mips64%el mips64%el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)))
> >>> +DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mxgot
> >>> +DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -mxgot
> >>>  endif
> >>
> >> But the explanation is:
> >>
> >>> filter mips%64 mips%64el,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)
> >>> is due to we may has some other mips64 architectures in future,
> >>> for example: mips64r6{el}.
> >>
> >> The filter string differs between the patch and explanation:
> >
> > The patch is correct.
> >
> > Sorry for it.
> >
> >>
> >> filter mips64%el mips64%el
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> filter mips%64 mips%64el.
> >>
> >> One is twice the same (typo?), the other has the percent sign placed
> >> differently.
> >>
> >> Please confirm the correct filter command, otherwise I cannot apply this
> >> patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ghis
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > YunQiang Su
>
>
>
> --
> YunQiang Su
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20151130/78a52bdb/attachment-0001.html>