Bug#211909: Correct solution *sigh*

The gcj binary packages which are not supported on hppa/mips/mipsel need the following line: Architecture: i386 m68k sparc alpha powerpc arm ia64 s390 sh hurd-i386 netbsd-i386 netbsd-alpha freebsd-i386 Or perhaps just: Architecture: i386 m68k sparc alpha powerpc arm ia64 s390 (forgetting about t

Bug#212085: Build-dependencies cannot be satisfied in unstable

Package: gcc-3.0 Version: 1:3.0.4ds3-16 (not installed) Severity: serious Build-Depends: libc6.1-dev (>= 2.2.5-6) | libc6-dev (>= 2.2.5-6) | libc0.3-dev, libc6.1-dev (<< 2.3) | libc6-dev (<< 2.3) | libc0.3-dev (<< 2.3), m4, autoconf2.13, libtool, gawk, dejagnu (>= 1.4), bzip2, binutils (>= 2.12.

Bug#210482: first.S attached

Andrés Roldán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there any workaround? Make sure no comment ends in 'S' or another macro name. Or use /* */ comments. -- Falk

Bug#212048: g++-3.2.3 does the same thing

Does the same thing: g++-3.2 static.cc -o static -static -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO

Bug#211909: acknowledged by developer (these aren't built because they don't build)

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Adam Majer writes: > > reopen 211909 > > thanks > > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > The reason gcc doesn't build gcj for some architectures is that they > > > currently > > > do

Bug#211783: gcc-3.3 3.3.2-0pre3 breaks ide-scsi.o in kernel 2.4.21 or 2.4.22

i can confirm this behavior. additional information from syslog: ~ Sep 20 16:59:13 freddy kernel: ide0: BM-DMA at 0xa800-0xa807, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio Sep 20 16:59:13 freddy kernel: ide1: BM-DMA at 0xa808-0xa80f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:p Sep 20 16:59:13 freddy kernel: hd

Bug#212048: g++-3.3: a statically compiled c++ binary which references syslog(3) SEGFAULTs on an exception

Package: g++-3.3 Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre4 Severity: important Tags: sid When compiled with "g++ static.cc -o static -static", this program segfaults on execution. I spent 6 hours narrowing this down as it is a very unlikely bug. Some speculation below. #include #include using namespace std; int

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

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 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:

Bug#211909: acknowledged by developer (these aren't built because they don't build)

Adam Majer writes: > reopen 211909 > thanks > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > > #211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL, > > which was filed against the gcc-3.3 packag

Processed: tagging 194345, tagging 210478, tagging 211054, tagging 195468

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 194345 upstream Bug#194345: g++ 3.3 needs to much memory / gets killed by OOM-killer Tags were: upstream Bug#194513: Internal error: unbalanced parenthesis in operand 1 Tags added: upstream > tag 210478 upstream Bug#210478: cpp-3.3: cpp generates

Processed: tagging 194345

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 194345 upstream Bug#194345: g++ 3.3 needs to much memory / gets killed by OOM-killer There were no tags set. Bug#194513: Internal error: unbalanced parenthesis in operand 1 Tags added: upstream > End of message, stopping processing here. Please c

Processed: Re: Bug#211909 acknowledged by developer (these aren't built because they don't build)

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 211909 Bug#211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL Bug reopened, originator not changed. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, De

Bug#205548: marked as done (gcc-3.3: linking fails for large shared libaries)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:20:51 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line fixed in binutils 2.14.90.0.6-2 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 is now your re

Bug#211909: acknowledged by developer (these aren't built because they don't build)

reopen 211909 thanks On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > #211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL, > which was filed against the gcc-3.3 package. > > It has been closed by one

Bug#211469: marked as done (Missing symlink in libgcc1)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:04:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line this isn't a bug 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 is now your responsibility to

Bug#211909: marked as done (Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:00:58 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line these aren't built because they don't build 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 is

Fw: coIIege naive girIs ready for H/\RD /\CTlON jWg tiT Y n xM Txy ZUrIn

Title: PeNOu aJ But we do have I am on a in 1917 in 1908 Well pwT where do you live? JtiX UuEfZkY what do you do? in 1917 in 1822 phones rule in NYC in 1982 do you work? First or standart class?

Processed: not a regression, no big impact on testing

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 211909 important Bug#211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL Severity set to `important'. > tag 211909 sarge Bug#211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL Tags were: sid sarge woody Tags added: sarge > tag 21

Processed: Bug#211909: Missing libgcj-common on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 211909 Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL Bug#211909: Missing libgcj-common on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL Changed Bug title. > tag 211909 + woody Bug#211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL There were no tags set. Tags

Bug#211909: not a regression, no big impact on testing

severity 211909 important tag 211909 sarge tag 211909 sid thanks madison says: libgcj-common | 1:3.3.1-0pre0 | testing | alpha, arm, i386, ia64, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc libgcj-common | 1:3.3.2-0pre3 | unstable | alpha, arm, ia64, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc libgcj-common | 1:3.3.2-

Bug#211909: Missing libgcj-common on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL

retitle 211909 Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL tag 211909 + woody tag 211909 + sarge tag 211909 + sid thanks On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:28:23AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > Package: gcc-3.3 > Severity: serious > > > *At least* libgcj-common seems to be missing from builds > on HP

Bug#211909: Missing libgcj-common on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL

Package: gcc-3.3 Severity: serious *At least* libgcj-common seems to be missing from builds on HPPA, Mips, Mipsel. Package is listed as Arch: any This breaks any package on those architectures that depend on libgcj-common eg. classpath. - Adam