reopen 123094 thanks Josip Rodin writes: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:14:56PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > > > Package: www.debian.org > > > > > > Severity: important > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems, that on > > > > > > > > > > > > http://packages.debian.org/testing/devel/gcc.html > > > > > > > > > > > > the wrong source package is referenced. There is no 2.95.2 in > > > > > > testing > > > > > > ... gcc-2.95.4 is. > > > > > > > > > > It looks like you were given an ambiguous reference > > > > > (testing/unstable). Those are two different distributions. Is 2.95.4 > > > > > in unstable? > > > > > > > > in testing and in unstable. > > > > > > This file, > > > > > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 treacy debwww 2255745 Dec 8 15:07 > > > testing/main.Sources > > > > > > includes: > > > > > > 110f1e5b3adfefc9d7be071e91c54f6a 13721892 gcc_2.95.2.orig.tar.gz > > > > > > And the output of `madison gcc` on auric includes > > > > > > gcc | 2.95.2-20 | testing | source > > > > > > This is not a bug on the packages.d.o web site. > > > > so you acknowledge the bug and close it? strange ... which package > > should it reassigned to? > > I don't know if it's a bug at all. You should endeavour to find out why the > 2.95.2-20 source is included in testing.
I see, so better close it before knowing its a bug ... - gcc_2.95.2 source is in testing - gcc-defaults_0.16 is in testing - gcc-2.95_2.95.4 is in testing so madison is correct, but the web page generation get's it wrong, that gcc-defaults is the source for gcc.
