>>>>> On 2005-07-08 03:50 PDT, Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> Can you please confirm whether these packages build
Steve> with gcc-*4.0*? I know that gcc-3.4 is supposed to be
Steve> almost identical to gcc-4.0, but the one Debian is
Steve> using is gcc-4.0, not gcc-3.4, which is an important
Steve> difference for whether these bugs should be treated as
Steve> severity: serious.
Sorry if I overrated these bug reports - I also thought 'serious'
is too high; I just chose 'does-not-build' in reportbug(1). I
don't have strong opinions on this so I would gladly file them all
with lower severities.
If 'serious' is incorrect in these situations, perhaps
'does-not-build' should choose a lower priority, or the UI should
make it clear that 'does-not-build' = serious (it's placed next to
'normal')? A lot of people might be filing FTBFS bug reports in
the coming days...
As to gcc-3.4 vs gcc-4.0: I don't claim that with my patches, the
packages compile under gcc-4.0; only that without the patch they
don't compile with gcc-3.4. Since all of these compile errors are
due to features deprecated in gcc-3.3 finally disallowed in
gcc-3.4, I'm fairly confident the packages also won't compile with
gcc-4.0. Since Debian now uses gcc-4.0, that counts as FTBFS, no?
I agree it would be helpful if I reported whether the patches are
complete enough for gcc-4.0 (they won't always be since gcc-4.0 is
even stricter), but it doesn't change the fact that the packages
fail to build under both gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0 unpatched.
--
Karl 2005-07-08 04:30
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
