Well. It's pity to read you've decided to throw away my effort to compile packages
Do we have FESCo approval for static libraries by any chance?
27.01.2016, 15:05, "Björn Persson" <Bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>:
Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> I've noticed that you excluded arm from the build architectures. iirc
> it was built successfully and was able to build all other packages as
> well. What happened to ARM? We should support all primary arches
> including arm.
When I rebuilt XMLada to get a static library I naturally also got a
new build of the shared library, and that turned out to be broken on
ARM. It crashes with a segmentation fault if it's been built with
gcc-5.3.1-3.fc24 or gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23, but it works if built with
gcc-5.1.1-4.fc23. I haven't tracked the bug down completely, but
currently it looks like a compiler bug. I did a scratch build before
I committed the changes, and the build succeeded, but I may have
neglected to test that the library from the scratch build actually
worked on an ARM machine.
Once a package is in Rawhide there is no turning back, and as GPRbuild
on ARM is still dynamically linked to XMLada, the broken package makes
further rebuilds impossible. I'll have to bootstrap GPRbuild with a
precompiled binary to get things working again, and that doesn't have
to be done before GCC 6 lands. It may even be better to wait, if GCC 6
doesn't have the bug.
Therefore I excluded ARM temporarily to at least get GPRbuild statically
linked for x86 and x86-64, so that I won't have to bootstrap those too.