ubuntu-hams-devel team mailing list archive
-
ubuntu-hams-devel team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00307
[Bug 645036] [NEW] [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: predict
Fails to build on armel due to conflict with system definition of R0
earthtrack.c:52: error: 'R0' redeclared as different kind of symbol
//usr/include/sys/ucontext.h:43: note: previous definition of 'R0' was here
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: predict (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic i686
Architecture: i386
Date: Wed Sep 22 10:19:30 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Karmic Koala" - Release i386 (20091028.5)
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_GB.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: predict
** Affects: predict (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: SevenMachines (sevenmachines)
Status: New
** Tags: apport-bug i386 maverick
** Changed in: predict (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => SevenMachines (sevenmachines)
--
[ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/645036
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
ham developers, which is subscribed to predict in ubuntu.
Status in “predict” package in Ubuntu: New
Bug description:
Binary package hint: predict
Fails to build on armel due to conflict with system definition of R0
earthtrack.c:52: error: 'R0' redeclared as different kind of symbol
//usr/include/sys/ucontext.h:43: note: previous definition of 'R0' was here
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: predict (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic i686
Architecture: i386
Date: Wed Sep 22 10:19:30 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Karmic Koala" - Release i386 (20091028.5)
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_GB.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: predict
Follow ups
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2010-09-23
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-23
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: Artur Rona, 2010-09-23
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-23
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-23
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: Artur Rona, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] Re: [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
-
[Bug 645036] [NEW] [ARMEL] FTBFS: previous definition of 'R0'
From: SevenMachines, 2010-09-22
References