Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> In a perfect world, somehow the correct gcc would be used (to make
> sure C++ ABI problems don't happen). Not sure if we can have that
> perfect world or not; see below.
In a perfect world, the ABI wouldn't need to change ;-)
On Sunday, Jun 15, 2003, at 15:50 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Er, no. Those binaries would work perfectly fine if you had built apt
with
the same C++ ABI. But I can't specify in a build-dependency "oh, and
your
apt must be built with the same C++ ABI". I _certainly_ can't do so
retroa
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 19:17 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
This was before woody released, before there was
any kind of C++ ABI transition plan, before there was even a g++-3.2
in the
archive. Surely you aren't suggesting that last year's
build-dependencies
should have anticipated
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:23:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> In a perfect world, somehow the correct gcc would be used (to make sure
> C++ ABI problems don't happen). Not sure if we can have that perfect world
> or not; see below.
No, we can't. Not today, and definitely not a year ago.
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 18:45 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
My two questions were:
1) Why did dpkg-buildpackage wind up compiling with the wrong
compiler? Isn't there a C++ transition plan that should
prevent that.
python-apt will, by default, use the de
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:05:37AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 06:45:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > According to 2.4.2, the package should build correctly. It did.
> > However, it didn't run because you had an incompatible version of apt
> > installed. The depe
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 06:45:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> According to 2.4.2, the package should build correctly. It did. However,
> it didn't run because you had an incompatible version of apt installed. The
> dependency system does not have a facility to handle this situation.
Well, o
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 05:46:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 01:40 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> >If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> >debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
> >bugs.debian.org/python-apt
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 05:46:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> My two questions were:
> 1) Why did dpkg-buildpackage wind up compiling with the wrong
> compiler? Isn't there a C++ transition plan that should
> prevent that.
I think it using the most current one, whic
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 01:40 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
bugs.debian.org/python-apt has the answer three times over.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:40:12AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> > debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
> > bugs.debian.org/python-apt has th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:40:12AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:11:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > I've managed to get python-apt (and thus apt-listchanges) working again
> > on my testing system. What a P
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:11:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I've managed to get python-apt (and thus apt-listchanges) working again
> on my testing system. What a PITA...
>
> Anyway, I first just tried to recompile python-apt-0.5.4.3. Compile went
> fine, but the first attempt to execu
13 matches
Mail list logo
