On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:00:51PM +0100, Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Can anyone reproduce/hunt down 114270? I can't reproduce it (I think > > it's probably Alpha specific), and I don't really have much of an > > idea where it could be. I haven't gotten any other reports of this, > > which makes me wonder if maybe it could be the reporter's system. > > I can't reproduce this with version 0.2.7.1-1. Instead, it starts > eating all memory when hitting return on a package, of course because > of an unsigned int compared against string::npos (didn't we have this > before a few times?) > > (The "comparison between signed and unsigned" warning of gcc is > *EVIL*. It makes people fuck up their code. Don't listen to it. Use > plain int.)
Yeah. I know that some earlier versions of aptitude worked on alpha, but I don't know when it broke, and unfortunately my archive of old binary packages only includes i386 packages. I'm uploading source packages for 0.1.0 through the present now; I'll see if I can hunt down even older stuff. (look in http://people.debian.org/~dburrows/aptitude) Daniel -- /-------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \------- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) --------/
