pls mark binutils-2.21.1 stable, see bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336020
Fails tests on x86. This is a regression over current stable. I'll post it as a new bug.
(In reply to comment #1) > Fails tests on x86. This is a regression over current stable. I'll post it as a > new bug. Posted as bug 379105.
Created attachment 283327 [details] binutils.report
Comment on attachment 283327 [details] binutils.report tested on x86, FEATURES="test" succeeded here.
amd64: yes it fails on test. Otherwise passes emerge and revdeps
excluded testfailure amd64 ok
+ 22 Aug 2011; Tony Vroon <chainsaw@gentoo.org> binutils-2.21.1.ebuild: + Marked stable on AMD64 based on arch testing by Ian "idella4" Delaney & + Agostino "ago" Sarubbo in bug #378485. The test suite has gained a failure, + but the package was deemed functional.
Archtested on x86: Tests failed, but stuff seems to link and work fine. I am a bit concerned about those failing tests though personally.
(In reply to comment #8) > Archtested on x86: Tests failed, but stuff seems to link and work fine. I am a > bit concerned about those failing tests though personally. I'm also against stabilizing something that breaks tests (while the current stable is doing its tests fine). It is also against stabilization policy and this wouldn't be the first package that would break other packages because of ignoring the tests (tests aren't provided just for the fun of keeping us busy, they have a function and by breaking they show their function).
(In reply to comment #7) > + 22 Aug 2011; Tony Vroon <chainsaw@gentoo.org> binutils-2.21.1.ebuild: > + Marked stable on AMD64 based on arch testing by Ian "idella4" Delaney & > + Agostino "ago" Sarubbo in bug #378485. The test suite has gained a failure, > + but the package was deemed functional. You marked the wrong version. It should be 2.21.1-r1, not 2.21.1. The -r1 contains an important fix for pax users.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > + 22 Aug 2011; Tony Vroon <chainsaw@gentoo.org> binutils-2.21.1.ebuild: > > + Marked stable on AMD64 based on arch testing by Ian "idella4" Delaney & > > + Agostino "ago" Sarubbo in bug #378485. The test suite has gained a failure, > > + but the package was deemed functional. > > You marked the wrong version. It should be 2.21.1-r1, not 2.21.1. The -r1 > contains an important fix for pax users. Let me add ... see bug #379321
Minor correction for amd64 + 25 Aug 2011; Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> binutils-2.21.1.ebuild, + binutils-2.21.1-r1.ebuild: + Restore ~amd64 to 2.21.1 and stabilize 2.21.1-r1 instead. Bug #378485 +
(In reply to comment #10) > You marked the wrong version. It should be 2.21.1-r1, not 2.21.1. Fails tests as well on x86.
most test failures should be gone now in 2.21.1-r1
(In reply to comment #14) > most test failures should be gone now in 2.21.1-r1 But still not all. Have done now 4 runs with different USE flag combos, still failing tests. You want an updated build log for bug #379105?
posting an updated log is fine. the remaining few i'm seeing (like 4 of them) are test issues only and not a bug in binutils.
Fails to compile on amd64 for me. Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.glo'
do not post compile failures here. file a new bug.
Stable for HPPA.
x86 stable
alpha/arm/ia64/m68k/s390/sh stable
sparc stable
ppc/ppc64 done
