Bug#693208: Bug#699899: tpu: clang/3.0-6.1+deb7u0

[Michael Stapelberg]

Hi Adam,

"Adam D. Barratt" <adam at adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> I wasn't particularly suggesting re-introducing 3.0 to unstable.
> However, given that packages from tpu get essentially no testing at all
> (no pun intended) before hitting testing, being able to prove a patch in
> unstable first avoids a number of (admittedly not all) potential
> issues.
Now I understand what your point was, thanks for clarifying.

> Looking at the proposed tpu diff and the 3.0 -> 3.1 diff, it looks like
> the armhf changes should apply "as is" to 3.1; has anyone tried that?
I have ported the patches from 3.0 to 3.1 and successfully built the
package on amd64, where it works.

Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day.

Sylvestre: Are you okay with me NMUing clang 3.1-8.1 to unstable in
order to expose my changes to a wider audience before we do the fix via
t-p-u?

-- 
Best regards,
Michael