Re: gcc-4.1: debian/patches/gcc-long-double.dpatch fails to apply
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > sorry, I did check in changes on the sid branch, which are not target > for etch. If we do want to make modifications for the etch target, we > should work on branches/etch instead. Well since Etch is frozen, the only thing that would justify an Etch branch is a security vulnerability or other release-critical bug that requires patching. Currently I see no need for an Etch branch. OTOH, the sid branch is supposed to work on sid, and apparently it doesn't. I can see at least three problems currently: - gcc-long-double.dpatch does not apply cleanly - build-depend on binutils (>= 2.17.50) which does not exist in sid (my earlier email to this list) - On some architectures, build-depend on glibc (>= 2.4) which does not exist in sid (okay, there's 2.5 in experimental, but experimental is not sid, and no package should ever depend or build-depend on a package in experimental). There may be other problems which I have not seen yet. So, could you please explain exactly what the "sid" branch is supposed to build on? In other words, what does it assume? I propose to revert the offending changes in the sid branch; if you want to commit changes not intended for sid, create a new branch for them. Would you care to suggest a name for that new branch? -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please allow gcc-doc-defaults 4.1.1.nf3 into etch
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please allow gcc-doc-defaults 4.1.1.nf3 into etch. > This upload fixes RC bug (#403328); the only change from previous version > is addition of missing Conflicts: entry. Unblocked. Marc -- Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt 213: NT-Fernwartung Microsoft Cordless Wheel Mouse (Auf der CeBit 2001 aufgeschnappt von Moritz Muehlenhoff) pgpF6xJaZhsFf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gcc-4.1: debian/patches/gcc-long-double.dpatch fails to apply
Ludovic Brenta writes: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > sorry, I did check in changes on the sid branch, which are not target > > for etch. If we do want to make modifications for the etch target, we > > should work on branches/etch instead. > > Well since Etch is frozen, the only thing that would justify an Etch > branch is a security vulnerability or other release-critical bug that > requires patching. Currently I see no need for an Etch branch. fine. > So, could you please explain exactly what the "sid" branch is supposed > to build on? In other words, what does it assume? prepared for sid unfreezing again after etch is released. the first thing to do is to update glibc and then binutils and gcc. You can find both versions needed in experimental. > I propose to revert the offending changes in the sid branch; if you > want to commit changes not intended for sid, create a new branch for > them. Would you care to suggest a name for that new branch? Please do not. We really don't need it. I consider sid as the trunk. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-4.1: debian/patches/gcc-long-double.dpatch fails to apply
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > prepared for sid unfreezing again after etch is released. the first > thing to do is to update glibc and then binutils and gcc. You can find > both versions needed in experimental. > >> I propose to revert the offending changes in the sid branch; if you >> want to commit changes not intended for sid, create a new branch for >> them. Would you care to suggest a name for that new branch? > > Please do not. We really don't need it. I consider sid as the trunk. Well in that case, the "trunk" is broken, as it is ahead of sid. What do you suggest to solve that problem? -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
