Re: logrotate 3.7-2 and m68k

2004-08-03 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:38:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:06:33AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Actually, you want <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. -68k is a users' list > > nowadays. > > Yes, I know the difference; this isn't something that requires an > official buildd

Re: logrotate 3.7-2 and m68k

2004-08-02 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:06:33AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > This issue warrants opening an RC bug against logrotate, that should be > > addressed before sarge. There will probably be someone on debian-68k > > (cc:ed) who ca

Re: logrotate 3.7-2 and m68k

2004-08-02 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > This issue warrants opening an RC bug against logrotate, that should be > addressed before sarge. There will probably be someone on debian-68k > (cc:ed) who can verify for us whether logrotate does build with gcc-3.4, Actually, you

Re: logrotate 3.7-2 and m68k

2004-08-02 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Paul, On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:25:26PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: > The m68k buildd was choking on logrotate due to a gcc internal error in > gcc-3.3. I've been pestered into ensuring that 3.7 gets into sarge > [m68k]. > All other arches are up-to-date in sarge. Only m68k has a much older > r