Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg

To: Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:03:33 +0200

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 07:43:44PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> [...]
> rust does sort of work.  Apparently the most recent 8.0 i386 and amd64
> builds built rust.  On amd64 even librsvg and emacs built.  But on i386,
> librsvg failed:
> 
> http://nyftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/reports/2019Q2/NetBSD-8.0-i386/20190823.1109/librsvg-2.44.14nb1/build.log

thread 'main' panicked at 'cannot load the default codegen backend twice', src/librustc_interface/util.rs:294:5

Looks like a bug in rust ?
I'm seeing more and more issues with softwares on 32bit platforms ...

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--

References:
- no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Christopher Pinon
- Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Greg Troxel

Prev by Date: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Next by Date: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Previous by Thread: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Next by Thread: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index