Sorry for taking so long to reply.
We are sorry to inform you that our product is still not in stores.
Currently we are only offering it on our product website and plan on having it
in stores come November 2006.
As mentioned Dr. Dickens is still recommending a 4 month supply for best
results.
I
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-snapshot
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status rep
LAST_UPDATED: Fri Sep 22 10:29:59 UTC 2006 (revision 117135)
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: c35507m
FAIL: cd2a23e
FAIL: cdd2a02
FAIL: cxh1001
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2311
# of unexpected failures4
Native configuration is x86
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > It could be that it not being in libgcj7 was a bug, and the placement
> > of libgjsmalsa.so.0 was a bug as well... but at the next soname bump
> > adding unofficial sonames to the shared libraries in /usr/lib/gcj-4.1
> > would
Don Armstrong writes:
> It could be that it not being in libgcj7 was a bug, and the placement
> of libgjsmalsa.so.0 was a bug as well... but at the next soname bump
> adding unofficial sonames to the shared libraries in /usr/lib/gcj-4.1
> would be a good idea to ease transitions.
shared objects in
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > libgcj7-0 (and by extension libgcj7) are packaged such that any
> > soname increment will result in the old versions of libgcj no
> > longer being installable unless the gcj version is also
> > incremented.
>
> won't fix. /usr/
Your message dated Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:09:20 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#383311: wish: update-alternatives entry for gcj
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 ca
Your message dated Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:44:16 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcj-3.3: gcj segfaults with Jabref
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 you
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 318534 + fixed-upstream
Bug#318534: [PR 22507] GCJ segfaults building Apache Cocoon
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: fixed-upstream
> retitle 318534 [PR 22507, fixed in 4.3] GCJ segfaults building Apache Cocoon
Bug#318534: [PR 22507] GCJ segfaults
Your message dated Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:56:20 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed at least in 4.1.1-13
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 respons
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 225434 + fixed-upstream
Bug#225434: [PR 13513] problems with static inner classes of interfaces
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: fixed-upstream
> retitle 225434 [PR 13513, fixed in 4.3] problems with static inner classes of
> interfaces
Bug#225434
Your message dated Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:42:52 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcj-4.1_4.1.1-13
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 responsi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 386892 + unreproducible
Bug#386892: gij-4.1: segfaults on ppc on startup
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 369873 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29194
Bug#369873: gcj-4.1: fails to import package from project
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29194.
> tags 369873 + upstream
Bug#369873: gcj-4.1: fails to import package
tags 386892 + unreproducible
thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong writes:
> Package: libgcj7-0
> Severity: important
> Version: 4.1.1-13
>
> libgcj7-0 (and by extension libgcj7) are packaged such that any soname
> increment will result in the old versions of libgcj no longer being
> installable unless the gcj version is also incremented.
won't fix
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20060922.orig.tar.gz
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1_amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20060922-1_amd64.deb
gcc-snapshot_20060922.orig.tar.gz
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
Severity: serious
Hi.
I'd like to confirm this bug, which is occuring on my Etch box.
That's really annonying, and has been there for a couple weeks now.
There's no documentation available for gcc, hence the severity.
Nikita V. Youshchenko writes:
>
> > Nikita V. Youshchenko writes:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I've updated gcc-4.1 documentation packages (Section: non-free/doc).
> > > Packages are no longer debian-native, also several issues have been
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > Also, I've created gcc-doc-defaults pac
20 matches
Mail list logo
