Comment 4 for bug 1311866

On 05/09/2015 01:25 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> firefox: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1451453
>> arm64 only, not a regression
>
> firefox failed to build on both arm64 and ppc64el in the toolchain test
> rebuild, but only failed on arm64 in a no-change rebuild.

to make it clear, there never was a "no-change rebuild". no, ppc64el isn't a
regression, it successfully built in the updates test rebuild.

> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: ../libjs_static.a(linux64.o): ABI version 1 is not compatible with ABI version 2 output
> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: failed to merge target specific data of file ../libjs_static.a(linux64.o)
> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: ../libjs_static.a(linux64_closure.o): ABI version 1 is not compatible with ABI version 2 output
> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: failed to merge target specific data of file ../libjs_static.a(linux64_closure.o)
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-
> rebuild-20150317/+build/7074123
>
> This looks to me like a toolchain-related regression.

this points to a toolchain issue, however it is not a regression. the arm64
firefox failed to build before with an internal compiler error, which I fixed,
and now fails later with a linker error.

>> flite: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1451462
>> fails to unpack (fuzz in diff)
>
> Do we know why this problem affected the toolchain test rebuild, but not
> the no-change test rebuild? The behavior of dpkg-source in the trusty
> build environment should not have changed since March.

again, there was no "no change rebuild".

>> gcc-4.8:
>> part of the proposed updates
>
> There is also a build failure of gcc-4.7 on ppc64el, is that part of the
> update?

no, there never was a ppc64el port for gcc-4.7.

> Please address the firefox/ppc64el and gcc-4.7 questions.

from my point of view, these are non-issues.