Bug#209503: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:20:43 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209503: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209634: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:17:59 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209634: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209620: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:19:45 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209620: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209528: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:09:35 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209528: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209611: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:17:36 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209611: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209598: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:09:14 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209598: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If thi

Bug#209590: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:54:55 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209590: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#209517: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:55:44 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209517: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#209687: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:55:17 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209687: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#209486: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)

Your message dated Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:46:46 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209486: The package description does not follow Debian policy has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#204654: It is a gcc problem that will require apache be recompiled

I'm pretty sure this relates to my message http://lists.debian.org/debian-ia64/2003/debian-ia64-200306/msg00031.html

Bug#210148: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: libgcj-common Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system adm

Bug#210060: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: libobjc1 Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administ

Bug#209633: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña writes: > Package: gnat-3.3-doc > Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 > Severity: important > Justification: section 2.3.3 > > Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide > a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: > > The descriptio

Bug#209517: The package description does not follow Debian policy

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:55:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > The description should be written so that it gives the system > > administrator enough information to decide whether to install the > > package. > > it does. Agreed, my mistake. I should have reviewed the descripti

Results for 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Sep 8 19:46:09 UTC 2003 Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced1.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/init/array11.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors) FAIL:

Results for 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on i486-pc-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Sep 8 19:46:09 UTC 2003 Native configuration is i486-pc-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors) XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes

Results for 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Sep 8 19:46:09 UTC 2003 Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o compile UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o-y_tst.o link UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bit

Results for 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on alpha-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Sep 8 19:46:09 UTC 2003 Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu === libjava tests === Running target unix FAIL: initexc execution - gij test FAIL: initexc execution - gij test === libjava Summary === # of expected passes29

Results for 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Sep 8 19:46:09 UTC 2003 Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix XPASS: g++.dg/other/packed1.C execution test XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes

Bug#209829: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gcc-3.2 Version: 1:3.2.3-8 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administrator

Bug#209503: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gnat-3.2-doc Version: 1:3.2.3-6 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administ

Bug#209633: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gnat-3.3-doc Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system admi

Bug#209620: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: cpp-3.3-doc Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system admin

Bug#209611: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre2 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administr

Bug#209634: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: g77-3.3-doc Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system admin

Bug#209528: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: g77-3.2-doc Version: 1:3.2.3-6 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administr

Bug#209598: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: g++-3.2 Version: 1:3.2.3-8 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administrator

Bug#209517: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gcc-3.2-doc Version: 1:3.2.3-6 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administr

Bug#209687: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: gcc-3.3-doc Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system admin

Bug#209590: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: g++-3.3 Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre2 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administr

Bug#209486: The package description does not follow Debian policy

Package: cpp-3.2-doc Version: 1:3.2.3-6 Severity: important Justification: section 2.3.3 Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states: The description should be written so that it gives the system administr

Bug#209386: libstdc++5-3.3-dev: missing(late) class forward declaration in cxxabi.h

Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre2 Severity: normal Tags: patch -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux kosh 2.4.21-5-k7 #1 Mon Aug 25 08:09:01 EST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages libstdc++5-3.3-dev depen

Re: Could you provide more information about g95?

retitle 195509 RFP: g95 -- GNU Fortran 95 thanks On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:55:27PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Thought this news might be of interest: g95 will be in gcc 3.5. > http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net/ (scroll down to News/July 27) > I don't know whether this means the bug can be clos

Bug#207915: marked as done (g++-3.3: [mips/el] [PR11716] Error: Branch out of range)

Your message dated Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:17:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#207915: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds2-0pre3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it

Bug#208717: marked as done (gcc-3.3_1:3.3.2ds1-0pre2(unstable/ia64,alpha): FTBFS: ICE at src/gcc/p/rts/rtsc.pas:60)

Your message dated Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:17:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#208717: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds2-0pre3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it

gcc-3.3 override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libgcc1_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb: package says priority is important, override says required. libstdc++5_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb: package says priority is important, override says required. Eit

gcc-3.3_3.3.2ds2-0pre3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-0pre3_all.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-0pre3_all.deb cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb fastjar_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre3_i386.deb

gcc-3.3_3.3.2ds2-0pre3_hppa.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb fastjar_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb g++-3.3_3.3.2-0pre3_hppa.deb