Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.130
Hi,
gcc-defaults is not binNMU-safe, the reason for this is that
libgcj-common is arch=all, and the dependencies on it from other
packages like libgcj-bc contain the binary epoch. The most easiest fix
for this is to change libgcj-common to arch=any as the rema
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 4.6.0-5
Severity: serious
Hi,
that g++ and gcj have different versions breaks the build of pdftk,
see e.g.
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=pdftk&ver=1.41%2Bdfsg-11%2Bb1&arch=powerpc&stamp=1304254757&file=log
If fixing pdftk to just use the default version,
* Torsten Werner (twer...@debian.org) [100124 14:46]:
> I am reassigning the bug to the gcc-4.4 package because the compiler
> suggest using -ffunction-sections when that argument is specified on
> the command line:
any news on this bug?
I'd appreciate if someone with more hppa / ELF knowledge th
Package: gcc-4.5
Version: 4.5-20100227-1
Architecture: mipsel
Severity: serious
Hi,
this package fails to apply the patches correctly;
Applying patch gcc-ice-hack.diff
patching file src/gcc/Makefile.in
Hunk #1 succeeded at 183 with fuzz 1 (offset 2 lines).
patching file src/gcc/diagnostic.c
pat
Package: gcj-jre-headless
Version: 4:4.4.2-3
Severity: serious
Hi,
on all arches we currently have:
LC_ALL=C apt-get -c apt.conf install java-gcj-compat-headless gij
gcj-jre-headless
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may me
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080521 12:13]:
> that looks ok for now, we can work on the unification of the headers
> later.
In case Thiemo agrees (or doesn't disagree) - do you plan to upload it?
Should I NMU it? ...?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth
Hi,
how do we continue here? Is the issue "just" that the headers are being
moved twice? This bug blocks testing migration of python2.5 and epiphany
which is a precondition for getting gcc-4.3 and gcc-defaults moved.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To U
case there are changes wanted, speak
with us first and tell us open about the risks, and we'll manage to come
to a way that's usefull for Debian at large and all of us. (And one
change is already under consideration at the moment, no need to repeat
such questions.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
burn enough?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 18:51]:
> Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > So, some ideas come to my mind:
> > 1. delay glibc upload until glib transitioned to testing
> > 2. do another upload with shlib bump after glib transitioned to testing,
> > and w
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 00:33]:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 21:15]:
> > > We (glibc maintainers) plan to do a change in glibc first. We will drop
> > > l
eakages
> with SIGILL on random packages.
>
> This is already implemented in the SVN, and we plan to do the upload on
> Sunday.
I hope this doesn't yet include another shlib bump (though it would be
good if the sparc v9 binaries have one).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
miss an answer?
Yes.
http://bugs.debian.org/428582:
| Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
| with ICE.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.compiler.batch.Main.compile(ecj1)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain.compile(ecj1)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain.main(ecj1)
I fear this needs some porting work as well, so Ccing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (via
bugs.d.o).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
t upgrade them all to important as of now
(and we'll probably have some release goals again, and having "compiles
with gcc-x.y" for all (future) x.y as goal seems like a good idea to me.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, does that mean that you don't think there are such
files inside? (At least Aurelien's way to check doesn't seem too good
to me.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0 from the 4.0 sources, now that
> all packages are built using 4.1 or using 3.4 as a fallback. We'll
> need the 4.0 source anyway to build libgcc2 on hppa and glibc on the
> hurd.
Good. That means that switching alpha to 4.1 would "just" be nice
anyways.
Thanks.
Ch
* Martin Michlmayr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060630 18:47]:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-30 10:53]:
> > the build of qt4-x11 fails on hppa with:
> > | g++ -c -pipe -I/usr/include/mysql -I/usr/include/freetype2
> > -I/usr/include/postgresql -g -D_RE
* Martin Michlmayr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060630 07:37]:
> gcc 4.0 and 4.2 work, 4.1 fails.
In this case, I tend to special-case k3d to use 4.0 for now, and replace
that with 4.2 some day.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=qt4-x11&ver=4.1.3-3&arch=hppa&stamp=1151288526&file=log&as=raw
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e affected? Also, can you give a rough
overview over the affected packages?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051007 04:42]:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > If
> > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > team first.
> That's not at all what I think.
>
> I think that
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0-0pre0
Severity: serious
Tags: experimental
| configure: error: GMP with MPFR support is required to build f95
Automatic build of gcc-4.0_4.0-0pre0 on swawa by sbuild/hppa 1.170.5
Build started at 20041115-1355
*
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0-0pre0
Severity: serious
Tags: experimental
Automatic build of gcc-4.0_4.0-0pre0 on odin by sbuild/sparc 1.170.5
Build started at 20041115-1123
**
Checking available source versions...
Fetching
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0-0pre0
Severity: serious
Tags: experimental
Hi,
I think this is the main problem
| 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file libffi/src/mips/ffi.c.rej
| patching file libffi/src/mips/ffitarget.h
| make: *** [stamps/02-patch-stamp-libffi-mips] Error 1
Automati
25 matches
Mail list logo
