Hello debian-gcc team,
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 23:48 +0200, Sven Geuer wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 12:46 +, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Package: src:tightvnc
> > Version: 1:1.3.10-8
> > [...]
> > Please keep the issue open until the package can be built in
&g
ow-up test rebuild. I must now
assume that this was never done and I should actually close the ticket as
unreproducible.
Kind regards,
Sven
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Package: libffi-dev
Version: 3.4.2-2
Tags: patch
The libffi-dev.doc-base file references files which no longer exist.
This leads to complaints from install-docs as well as lintian errors.
The following patch takes care of that and also ensures that the
doc-base file does not need to be updated ag
Package: libgcc-8-dev
Version: 8.4.0-2
Severity: grave
The latest version of gcc-8 is not installable because libgcc-8-dev
depends on libgcc-s1 (>= 1:8.4.0-2), but the version of libgcc-s1 in the
archive does not have an epoch and is therefore too low to fulfill this
requirement.
The same holds f
Package: libgcc-s1
Version: 10-20200202-1
Severity: serious
On systems where /lib is a symlink to /usr/lib (which is the case for
every new buster installation, for instance), it can easily happen that
/usr/lib/$DEB_HOST_MUTIARCH/libgcc_s.so.1 disappears on upgrades. This
happens whenever libgcc-
Package: libobjc-9-dev
Version: 9.2.1-8
Your package includes a dangling symlink:
,
| $ file /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/libobjc_gc.so
| /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/libobjc_gc.so: broken symbolic link to
../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libobjc_gc.so.4
`
According to apt-file there is
ynamic linker in the mmap area.
It seems like the behavior will be reverted [1] in the kernel and no change in
GCC is necessary at the moment.
Kind regards,
Sven
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170807201542.GA21271@beast
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Source: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.168d1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
The gcc preinst script removes the /usr/share/doc/gcc symlink (it tests
whether /usr/share/doc/gcc is a directory, but this test also succeeds
for a symlink to a directory), apparently as part of a
directory -> symlink conversion th
nce several people have
observed the problem.
Cheers,
Sven
On 2016-06-13 15:55 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-06-13 14:43 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 13.06.2016 12:46, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> Package: gcc-6
>>> Version: 6.1.1-6
>>> Severity: minor
>>>
>>> $ gcc-6 --version
>&g
1 20160609
>>
>> There was no such problem with gcc-6 6.1.1-5.
>
> from the logs:
>
>> Configured with: -v
>> --with-pkgversion=' 6.1.1-6'
>
> Don't know what happened. A new build has the distro name again.
It's because of #826962, but I cannot reproduce that bug.
Cheers,
Sven
s point into (or
> one beyond) the same array. As this is not true of null pointers, the
> compiler may infer that old can't be null, so cp can't be null, so there
> is no need to check whether it is.
This is true in C, unfortunately. However…
> I.e. this is a bug in nfs-uti
mmand must fail (likewise for cp):
| rm -rf a b c; mkdir a b c; touch a/f b/f; mv a/f b/f c
|Otherwise, the contents of b/f would be lost.
|In the case of 'cp', b/f would be lost if the user simulated
|a move using cp and rm.
|Note that it works fine if you use --backu
reassign 638867 gcc-multilib
forcemerge 638418 638867
thanks
On 2011-08-22 17:55 +0200, François Revol wrote:
> Le 22/08/2011 17:48, Sven Joachim a écrit :
>> On 2011-08-22 17:07 +0200, François Revol wrote:
>>
>>> Package: linux-libc-dev
>>> Version: 3.0.0-2
>
Package: gcc-multilib
Version: 4:4.6.1-2
Severity: serious
I've been tearing my hair out WTF this suddenly happened:
,
| $ echo '#include ' > junk.c
| $ gcc -m64 -c junk.c
| In file included from /usr/include/bits/errno.h:25:0,
| from /usr/include/errno.h:36,
|
Package: gcc-4.6-multilib
Version: 4.6.1-6
,
| $ file /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.6/64/libquadmath.so
| /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.6/64/libquadmath.so: broken
symbolic link to `../../../../../../lib64/libquadmath.so.0'
`
Looks like gcc-4.6-multilib ough
d in testing, with priority extra,
>> but not that the "several runtime libraries" (which ones are they?) be
>> built from the gcc-4.5 sources.
>>
>> Would that be acceptable to everyone?
>>
> I assume gcc-4.5 needs libgcc1 from gcc-4.5.
As well as libgomp1
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: Debian GCC Maintainers
Please downgrade the priority of gcc-4.3-base to optional, now that
libgcc is built from the gcc-4.4 sources.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
gcc version).
Cheers,
Sven
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.29-1-686-bigmem (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: serious
The priority of gcc-4.2-base should be downgraded to optional from
required, because the only reason that it was ever required in the first
place is that libgcc1 used to depend on it; and that package is now
built from the gcc-4.3 source package.
Severity
Package: libstdc++5
Version: 1:3.3.6-16
Severity: grave
libstdc++5 is not installable, as it depends on gcc-3.3-base
(>= 1:3.3.6-16) which has not been built, according to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-3.3/news/20080329T183205Z.html.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
pective maintainers.
Regards,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.2-4
Severity: grave
The latest gcc-4.1 upload is lacking libssp0 on which several packages
on my system depend, for instance some libavahi-* packages. Looking at
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-4.1/news/20070425T222047Z.html, it
is still mentioned in the Binary f
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.50
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if there were a gcc-locales metapackage depending on
the gcc-x.y-locales package for the default Debian gcc version. It
would not only pull it automacically in, but people who only want to
have one gcc version on their system
Shouldn't this bug be closed, now that gcc-4.1-doc is available in
non-free and gcc-doc has moved to contrib?
Kind regards,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
found #385732 1.47
thanks
In version 1.47, fsf-funding.7 is in the source tarball again.
Reopening the bug,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg
Version: 4.1.1-nf1
Severity: serious
In previous versions of gcc-4.1-doc (up to 4.1.1-10),
/usr/share/doc/gcc-4.1-doc was a symlink to gcc-4.1-base. Because
dpkg follows the symlink when upgrading the package, your files end up
in /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.1-base, overwri
Matthias Klose wrote:
The source package still contains the non-free files fsf-funding.7,
ok.
gfdl.7 and gpl.7, apparently for no good reason since they aren't
installed. Please remove them.
no, license texts can be included. there's no reason to remove them.
But the GFDL is not the lic
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.42
Severity: serious
The source package still contains the non-free files fsf-funding.7,
gfdl.7 and gpl.7, apparently for no good reason since they aren't
installed. Please remove them.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unsta
Package: gcc-4.1-base
Version: 4.1.1-13
Severity: normal
Since the documentation has been removed :-(, there is no need to
mention its license in debian/copyright any more.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architectur
reassign 383755 gcc-defaults
merge 383755 384278
thanks
Sorry for the duplicate report. I didn't notice #383755
because it was filed against the wrong package.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc
Version: 4:4.1.1-6
Severity: normal
Today I got mail from the mandb cron script:
mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/cc.1.gz is a dangling symlink
mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/c++.1.gz is a dangling symlink
This is because the gcc postinst installs the following alternative:
ernels by the kernel team a
few weeks ago is already a good step into this direction.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but better have
two links for them than none.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Klose wrote:
But maybe some magic in the preinst scripts can avoid that.
Please check the packages at
deb http://people.debian.org/~doko/gcc-4.0 ./
Inside a chroot, I upgraded the packages:
4.0.2-6 -> 4.0.2-9 -> 4.0.2-11,
but, alas, the copyright and changelog were still lost
a
Matthias Klose wrote:
reassign 355439 gcc-4.0-base
thanks
Sven Joachim writes:
reassign 355439 libgcc1
thanks
Reassigning this to libgcc1, since I found out this package
(and lib64gcc1) at fault (see my previous message).
no, the file is missing in gcc-4.0-base.
Huh? The gcc-4.0-base
reassign 355439 libgcc1
thanks
Reassigning this to libgcc1, since I found out this package
(and lib64gcc1) at fault (see my previous message).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Klose wrote:
Sven Joachim writes:
Package: gcc-4.0-base
Version: 4.0.2-10
Severity: serious
It looks as if bug #346171 has raised its ugly head again, since somehow the
files /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base{copyright, changelog.Debian.gz} disappeared
after the upgrade from 4.0.2-9 to
Package: gcc-4.0-base
Version: 4.0.2-10
Severity: serious
It looks as if bug #346171 has raised its ugly head again, since somehow the
files /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base{copyright, changelog.Debian.gz} disappeared
after the upgrade from 4.0.2-9 to 4.0.2-10:
$ ls /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base
Ada
Julien, could you maybe try downgrading to the older binutils version, and
seeing what went wrong ?
As said on irc, the likely solution here would be to disable the alpha native
compilers until the solution is found.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:01:18PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > tags 336167 +patch
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> tags 336167 +patch
> thanks
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The appended patch reverts a single line of the diff between 4.0.2-2
> > > and 4.0.2-3 and lets the testcase succeed. I don't
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:33:35PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Package: gcc-4.0
> > > Version: 4.0.2-3
> > > Severity: grave
> > > Justification: renders package unusable
> > >
> > &
t; {standard input}:72: Error: symbol `name_index' is
already defined
08:42 < svenl> {standard input}:77: Error: symbol `value' is already
defined
While a 4.0.2-2 build passed fine.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
.mo instead.
--
Sven Joachim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
l there is is
/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/gcc.mo :-( , so I still get English
messages.
It seems you have to reopen the bug.
Regards,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-3
Severity: normal
Tags: l10n
Gcc always prints its messages in English, rather than my preferred
German. Running "strace gcc-4.0 -v" shows that gcc tries to read the
german messages from the file /usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/gcc.mo,
which does not exist. It ha
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > > interact on this issue, and what is
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
> > the #ppc64 folk that i should compi
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 10:44:10AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > BTW, is it possible to easily disable the tests in order to spare a few
> > hours of build when experimenting like that. Having to wait 7 hours for
> > the build to complete is, well
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:02:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
> > interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
> > the #ppc64 folk that i should compi
and gcc
interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
the #ppc64 folk that i should compile gcc with the ppc64 target, but
have it default to 32bit code by default. My early tries for this try to
generate a lib64gcc1, and fails, as you said. Do you have any wisdom to
share with me about why this is the case ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:44:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > It builds simple binaries without problems. But it didn't build the
> > > biarch toolchain, so it was of no use for me.
> > >
> > > After a bit of investigation, i found out that :
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 08:12:36AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > First, i found that this gcc-3.4 package in experimental wasn't yet
> > built on powerpc, which i did. It did output lot of FAILs in the tests
> > later on, but i am not su
for ordinary powerpc, but would
allow to build ppc64 stuff with the same toolchain. Am i correct with
this assumption ? I will try tomorrow to build this, but would it make
sense to enable this in the experimental powerpc packages ? And what
about the not gcc or cxx compilers ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
ething such, but i don't think it
is a problem with my build dependencies, since as said libstdc++5-dev is
pulled in by xlibmesa-glu-dev.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
ecise case, altough that would be fine too, but what is causing it in
general) so i know what i am looking for in the source code.
Notice, that ocamlc builds fine with gcc 3.2 on all the other arches, if
i am not wrong.
Thanks in advance for any help you may give me.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
rts about similar problems,
it must have been a problem with my install, or something i did badly, or my
harddisk causing problems, maybe bad permission on /tmp ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
empty file (well with a empty main function in it).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
59 matches
Mail list logo
