- Package:
- src:rdma-core
- Source:
- src:rdma-core
- Submitter:
- Adrian Bunk
- Date:
- 2026-10-06 13:25:02 UTC
- Severity:
- normal
- Tags:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=rdma-core&arch=armhf&ver=65.0-1&stamp=1789466365&raw=0 ... FAILED: [code=1] pyverbs/CMakeFiles/comp_cntr.cpython-314-arm-linux-gnueabihf.dir/comp_cntr.c.o /usr/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -Dcomp_cntr_cpython_314_arm_linux_gnueabihf_EXPORTS -I/build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/include -I/usr/include/libnl3 -I/usr/include/drm -I/usr/include/python3.14 -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=format-security -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wall -Wextra -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-parameter -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wwrite-strings -Wformat=2 -Wcast-function-type -Wformat-nonliteral -Wdate-time -Wnested-externs -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wredundant-decls -O3 -DNDEBUG -std=gnu11 -fPIC -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=format-security -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wall -Wextra -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-parameter -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wwrite-strings -Wformat=2 -Wcast-function-type -Wformat-nonliteral -Wdate-time -Wnested-externs -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wredundant-decls -fPIC -fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-unused-function -Wno-redundant-decls -Wno-shadow -Wno-cast-function-type -Wno-implicit-fallthrough -Wno-unknown-warning -Wno-unknown-warning-option -Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-var-tracking-assignments -MD -MT pyverbs/CMakeFiles/comp_cntr.cpython-314-arm-linux-gnueabihf.dir/comp_cntr.c.o -MF pyverbs/CMakeFiles/comp_cntr.cpython-314-arm-linux-gnueabihf.dir/comp_cntr.c.o.d -o pyverbs/CMakeFiles/comp_cntr.cpython-314-arm-linux-gnueabihf.dir/comp_cntr.c.o -c /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c: In function ‘__pyx_pf_7pyverbs_9comp_cntr_8CompCntr_14read’: /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c:5168:61: error: passing argument 2 of ‘ibv_read_comp_cntr’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 5168 | __pyx_v_rc = ibv_read_comp_cntr(__pyx_v_self->comp_cntr, (&__pyx_v_value)); | ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | long unsigned int * In file included from /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c:1133: /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/include/infiniband/verbs.h:3128:67: note: expected ‘uint64_t *’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int *’} but argument is of type ‘long unsigned int *’ 3128 | int ibv_read_comp_cntr(struct ibv_comp_cntr *comp_cntr, uint64_t *value); | ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~ /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c: In function ‘__pyx_pf_7pyverbs_9comp_cntr_8CompCntr_16read_err’: /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/pyverbs/comp_cntr.c:5345:65: error: passing argument 2 of ‘ibv_read_err_comp_cntr’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 5345 | __pyx_v_rc = ibv_read_err_comp_cntr(__pyx_v_self->comp_cntr, (&__pyx_v_value)); | ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | long unsigned int * /build/reproducible-path/rdma-core-65.0/build-deb/include/infiniband/verbs.h:3135:71: note: expected ‘uint64_t *’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int *’} but argument is of type ‘long unsigned int *’ 3135 | int ibv_read_err_comp_cntr(struct ibv_comp_cntr *comp_cntr, uint64_t *value); | ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~ ...
Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for rdma-core (versioned as 65.0-1.1) and uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I should cancel it. cu Adrian
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of rdma-core, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1148146@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> (supplier of updated rdma-core package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org) Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 20:14:41 +0300 Source: rdma-core Architecture: source Version: 65.0-1.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> Changed-By: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> Closes: 1148146 Changes: rdma-core (65.0-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Non-maintainer upload. * Backport proposed fix for FTBFS on 32-bit. (Closes: #1148146) Checksums-Sha1: fc13b186f478b24d20014abf53d26b854104c942 3253 rdma-core_65.0-1.1.dsc b6437c895d09af952306dfef5ff13d8eb0b48772 26224 rdma-core_65.0-1.1.debian.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 868af219f88416adb23f570c50e18030e073237e7a0017cae3bd15f51a2fe307 3253 rdma-core_65.0-1.1.dsc 648a196778af5c037fa3b923a46f1fe3d884559fc973d197c9be331a4b1e9623 26224 rdma-core_65.0-1.1.debian.tar.xz Files: 4b44b95176081b4da03c693ba869cc57 3253 net optional rdma-core_65.0-1.1.dsc 626bacddcec03eb4b5a907d726ee4ea7 26224 net optional rdma-core_65.0-1.1.debian.tar.xz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEOvp1f6xuoR0v9F3wiNJCh6LYmLEFAmq/7sAACgkQiNJCh6LY mLGbsQ//b2IjqEK1MLVVYfL7OMIWRa66ys+KN93AFQsnDQMAfML5Dd2L2UfJhTQk yGSsj9drpY+dLyNXVaZInthrz1LJgLl/bjX3sZFe1tqYZcuHSLpb+EeCvf7jQKZw heLyRwX+PEfM/aqYJfSFD6/ZtcUz5pjpY36KdCIVfjf78SkdbecF6a7P5GrigORr f3yA5BLr41aW01Yeycrohiy3Pj0dXUuw1k9kNkOQt2yiZZ3JpqRuwgJwiEXktJQX 17skFw0CIcMgpQlSOVMdXTgwsuzMALsOQR9lJuEKarct+7BhzPK9kYrzfuvHZEq0 meG4CsmWh/WyRDDjJE5u2WhqymUcYCboiNOMEG4R8DBO1koGzO3SLq5lyRfLmhRs nDxh4VklX0Iu4QEinrP5MsLn7Nu4Obpyr1Ia3jOKv24RqwYC2RtFzKwynOcZFpaF cP+V0Guz3emwxvLzBtx+3KEtxpxFxg4LoD1Ni7T3xQ99r6RLsahs0PsUQkVcFHwn P5rOCp4H52WH99PwIVVmU1geHUUpIDgfaWTQElWTDvag1BLxnJAalFG9AyGHFZHt sDz01dHteg1fkj2YWIDPEHcQcwtr803xvJSI/tIpIiLQMDAY1Qtwe0zAn8v8Ehlk rw4y5iQxp3cZUEOBmCqrqH3UkUhqiLBNyZxeBv+NuH9IXMvWQE0= =HjPL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This mail got stuck in the spam filter and I only saw the upload. Thanks for the fix! May I ask to submit a PR next time? I applied your NMU to the git repository.
a week. I try to stay away from salsa for NMUs since policies there are maintainer-specific, which makes a difference e.g. in the cases when there are already commits on the branch that I do not include in my NMU. Such commits might be janitor commits, or an aborted maintainer attempt to upgrade to a new upstream version that was aborted a year ago, or many other things. And you are asking for a MR, while other maintainers want NMUs directly pushed to the repository. You are likely not aware of the diversity of salsa workflows, but I've made bad experiences when what I did in a maintainer git repository was different from what that maintainer expected. cu Adrian BTW: You sent the email to the bug unencrypted, but the copy to me was encrypted.