>>>>> On 2005-07-08 03:50 PDT, Steve Langasek writes: Steve> Can you please confirm whether these packages build Steve> with gcc-*4.0*? I know that gcc-3.4 is supposed to be Steve> almost identical to gcc-4.0, but the one Debian is Steve> using is gcc-4.0, not gcc-3.4, which is an important Steve> difference for whether these bugs should be treated as Steve> severity: serious.
Sorry if I overrated these bug reports - I also thought 'serious' is too high; I just chose 'does-not-build' in reportbug(1). I don't have strong opinions on this so I would gladly file them all with lower severities. If 'serious' is incorrect in these situations, perhaps 'does-not-build' should choose a lower priority, or the UI should make it clear that 'does-not-build' = serious (it's placed next to 'normal')? A lot of people might be filing FTBFS bug reports in the coming days... As to gcc-3.4 vs gcc-4.0: I don't claim that with my patches, the packages compile under gcc-4.0; only that without the patch they don't compile with gcc-3.4. Since all of these compile errors are due to features deprecated in gcc-3.3 finally disallowed in gcc-3.4, I'm fairly confident the packages also won't compile with gcc-4.0. Since Debian now uses gcc-4.0, that counts as FTBFS, no? I agree it would be helpful if I reported whether the patches are complete enough for gcc-4.0 (they won't always be since gcc-4.0 is even stricter), but it doesn't change the fact that the packages fail to build under both gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0 unpatched. -- Karl 2005-07-08 04:30 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]