On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:23:29AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > This looks like a clear gcc bug - why is it assigned to xfsprogs? > (I guess I need to know how do you expect this to become fixed by > any change in xfsprogs?). > > Do you want a platform-specific dependency on gcc-4.1 or later (is > that even possible?).
Yes it's possible, but you may not wish to go to the trouble. It's mostly up to you. At some point, hopefully soon, gcc-4.1 will be the default compiler on m68k. > > I'm willing to do a binNMU if that would be helpful. > > I'm not sure what you'd be changing, so not sure how a binary NMU > would help the situation? I'd simply compile the package with gcc-4.1. If you're not planning a sourceful upload any time soon, this would get the package up-to-date and I'd have one less buildd failure for my arch. :) -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
