> >
> > I think you should apply the patch, because the build daemons use gcc 3.3
> > for building the packages. I can provide an indirect test to the patch in
> > the next upload of the octave2.1 package. In the last upload, I changed a
> > CFLAG from -O1 to -O0 for m68k and the compilation succ
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:42:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Richard Zidlicky writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the problem has been already discussed some time
> > ago "upstream", now ocatve triggered the bug so
> > it seems the fix should be backported to 3.3
> >
> > octave problem
> > http://list
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:16:35AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-02 10:42]:
>
> > I'm applying the patch for 3.4 now, debian-m68k, should the patch
> > applied without testing to 3.3 as well?
>
> I think you should apply the patch, because the b
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-02 10:42]:
> I'm applying the patch for 3.4 now, debian-m68k, should the patch
> applied without testing to 3.3 as well?
I think you should apply the patch, because the build daemons use gcc 3.3
for building the packages. I can provide an indirect t
Richard Zidlicky writes:
> Hi,
>
> the problem has been already discussed some time
> ago "upstream", now ocatve triggered the bug so
> it seems the fix should be backported to 3.3
>
> octave problem
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2005/02/msg00049.html
that message has another (.extbf) p
Hi,
the problem has been already discussed some time
ago "upstream", now ocatve triggered the bug so
it seems the fix should be backported to 3.3
octave problem
http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2005/02/msg00049.html
gcc discussion
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-03/msg00940.html
http://gc
6 matches
Mail list logo
