Re: address@hidden: Bug#105529: parted doesn't build on ia64]

[Andrew Clausen]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:08:55AM +1000, Timshel Knoll wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> There've been problems building parted on ia64 ... more -Werror stuff.
> Patch from Jeff Licquia is attached ...

Thanks

> parted doesn't build on ia64:
> 
>  gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../../include -O2 -D_REENTRANT 
> -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -W -Wall 
> -Wno-unused -Wno-switch -Werror -c hfs.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o hfs.o
>     cc1: warnings being treated as errors
>     In file included from /usr/include/asm/page.h:12,
>     from hfs.c:37:
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:32: warning: redefinition of `int8_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:184: warning: `int8_t' previously declared here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:33: warning: redefinition of `u_int8_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:190: warning: `u_int8_t' previously declared here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:35: warning: redefinition of `int16_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:185: warning: `int16_t' previously declared here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:36: warning: redefinition of `u_int16_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:191: warning: `u_int16_t' previously declared 
> here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:38: warning: redefinition of `int32_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:186: warning: `int32_t' previously declared here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:39: warning: redefinition of `u_int32_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:192: warning: `u_int32_t' previously declared 
> here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:41: warning: redefinition of `int64_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:187: warning: `int64_t' previously declared here
>     /usr/include/asm/types.h:42: warning: redefinition of `u_int64_t'
>     /usr/include/sys/types.h:193: warning: `u_int64_t' previously declared 
> here
>     make[4]: *** [hfs.lo] Error 1

This is a bug in Linux headers, right?  Anyway, as it turns out, those
#include's are unnecessary (err, too much cut&paste, hehe!)

> Patch:

Thanks.

Does Debian bureaucracy require that I release a new (stable) version, or
can you live with your patch for now?

Andrew