Bug#770670: g++: fails to compile in c++0x mode on ppc64el with std::vector and SDL

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2014-11-25 20:13 GMT+00:00 Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont at hp.com>:
>
> Hmm, according to [1], "arm64 and ppc64el have made enough progress to be
> release architectures for Jessie. Britney no longer has special handling
> for these two. Therefore, FTBFS regressions for arm64 and ppc64el
> are now release critical (but non-regressions are not)."
>
> Since the fix is quite easy, I think we should not bother the release team and
> upload the fixed package to unstable. (and we need to have the unblock
> approved by Dec 5th).
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00005.html


First and foremost, I am fine with whatever you want to do, I don't
have a strong opinion.  I gave my opinion in order to avoid (or at
least be aware)  the situation where we have a package in unstable
during the freeze that release managers don't want to accept in
testing.


With ppc64el being "fringe" I meant that, independently of what the
release team think, since this is not a mainstream architecture and
quite recent, and the bug triggered only under certain conditions, I
don't think that there will be lots of people affected by this bug.

As a person who helped to get many key packages compiling on both
these new architectures (and helped them in other various ways), and
made changes to several SDL packages very early on (2013) to get these
architectures supported, I am happy to get these things fixed and I do
really care about these new ports.

I am just pointing out that it's not libsdl2 itself which FTBFS while
it compiled before (regression), in which case it would be RC for
sure.  It's only that some packages that use libsdl2, in C++ (not C or
other languages), and (if I understood correctly) only when using the
non-default and still experimental -std=c++0x, fail to compile.

So, in summary, I don't think that this is serious (RC), and I even
have doubts that it's "important" in a broad sense.  I am quite sure
that if you believe that it's important and explain it (we have a bug
report of somebody affected, it's not purely theoretical!), they will
let it to be applied -- but not 100%, I think that Release Managers
are more reluctant to accept fixes than in previous releases.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>