Your message dated Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Jul 2005 14:33:13 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 23 07:33:13 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from 216.red-62-57-140.user.auna.net (aragorn) [62.57.140.216] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1DwL3w-0000tS-00; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:33:12 -0700 Received: from rmh by aragorn with local (Exim 4.52) id 1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:35 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0359210800==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: add -DDEBIAN flag X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15 Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:34 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 This is a multi-part MIME message sent by reportbug. --===============0359210800== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Package: gcc-4.0 Version: 4.0.1-2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros (the most common one being DEBIAN). What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc? I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it to identify our distribution. Please consider the attached patch. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on: ii binutils 2.16.1-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii cpp-4.0 4.0.1-2 The GNU C preprocessor ii gcc-4.0-base 4.0.1-2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-2 GCC support library Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends: ii libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari pn libmudflap0-dev <none> (no description available) -- no debconf information --===============0359210800== Content-Type: application/x-shellscript MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="define_debian.dpatch" IyEgL2Jpbi9zaCAtZQoKIyBBbGwgbGluZXMgYmVnaW5uaW5nIHdpdGggYCMgRFBBVENIOicgYXJl IGEgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHBhdGNoLgojIERQOiBEZWZpbmUgREVCSUFOIG1hY3JvLgoK ZGlyPQppZiBbICQjIC1lcSAzIC1hICIkMiIgPSAnLWQnIF07IHRoZW4KICAgIHBkaXI9Ii1kICQz IgogICAgZGlyPSIkMy8iCmVsaWYgWyAkIyAtbmUgMSBdOyB0aGVuCiAgICBlY2hvID4mMiAiYGJh c2VuYW1lICQwYDogc2NyaXB0IGV4cGVjdHMgLXBhdGNofC11bnBhdGNoIGFzIGFyZ3VtZW50Igog ICAgZXhpdCAxCmZpCmNhc2UgIiQxIiBpbgogICAgLXBhdGNoKQogICAgICAgIHBhdGNoICRwZGly IC1mIC0tbm8tYmFja3VwLWlmLW1pc21hdGNoIC1wMSA8ICQwCiAgICAgICAgOzsKICAgIC11bnBh dGNoKQogICAgICAgIHBhdGNoICRwZGlyIC1mIC0tbm8tYmFja3VwLWlmLW1pc21hdGNoIC1SIC1w MSA8ICQwCiAgICAgICAgOzsKICAgICopCiAgICAgICAgZWNobyA+JjIgImBiYXNlbmFtZSAkMGA6 IHNjcmlwdCBleHBlY3RzIC1wYXRjaHwtdW5wYXRjaCBhcyBhcmd1bWVudCIKICAgICAgICBleGl0 IDEKZXNhYwpleGl0IDAKCiMgYXBwZW5kIHRoZSBwYXRjaCBoZXJlIGFuZCBhZGp1c3QgdGhlIC1w PyBmbGFnIGluIHRoZSBwYXRjaCBjYWxscy4KCmRpZmYgLXVyIGdjYy00LjAuMS5vbGQvZ2NjL2Nv bmZpZy9nbnUuaCBnY2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9nbnUuaAotLS0gZ2NjLTQuMC4xLm9sZC9n Y2MvY29uZmlnL2dudS5oCTIwMDQtMDctMDUgMjE6NDk6MTQuMDAwMDAwMDAwICswMjAwCisrKyBn Y2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9nbnUuaAkyMDA1LTA3LTIzIDE2OjE3OjI4LjAwMDAwMDAwMCAr MDIwMApAQCAtMTcsNiArMTcsNyBAQAogCiAjZGVmaW5lIEhVUkRfVEFSR0VUX09TX0NQUF9CVUlM VElOUygpCQlcCiAgICAgZG8gewkJCQkJXAorCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiREVCSUFOIik7CQlc CiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmUgKCJfX2dudV9odXJkX18iKTsJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgi X19HTlVfXyIpOwkJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lX3N0ZCAoInVuaXgiKTsJCVwKZGlmZiAtdXIg Z2NjLTQuMC4xLm9sZC9nY2MvY29uZmlnL2tmcmVlYnNkLWdudS5oIGdjYy00LjAuMS9nY2MvY29u ZmlnL2tmcmVlYnNkLWdudS5oCi0tLSBnY2MtNC4wLjEub2xkL2djYy9jb25maWcva2ZyZWVic2Qt Z251LmgJMjAwNC0wNi0yNCAwNDo1NjoyMy4wMDAwMDAwMDAgKzAyMDAKKysrIGdjYy00LjAuMS9n Y2MvY29uZmlnL2tmcmVlYnNkLWdudS5oCTIwMDUtMDctMjMgMTY6MTc6NDIuMDAwMDAwMDAwICsw MjAwCkBAIC0yNCw2ICsyNCw3IEBACiAjZGVmaW5lIExJTlVYX1RBUkdFVF9PU19DUFBfQlVJTFRJ TlMoKQkJXAogICBkbwkJCQkJCVwKICAgICB7CQkJCQkJXAorCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiREVC SUFOIik7CQlcCiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmUgKCJfX0ZyZWVCU0Rfa2VybmVsX18iKTsJXAogCWJ1 aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiX19HTElCQ19fIik7CQlcCiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmVfc3RkICgidW5p eCIpOwkJXApkaWZmIC11ciBnY2MtNC4wLjEub2xkL2djYy9jb25maWcva25ldGJzZC1nbnUuaCBn Y2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9rbmV0YnNkLWdudS5oCi0tLSBnY2MtNC4wLjEub2xkL2djYy9j b25maWcva25ldGJzZC1nbnUuaAkyMDA0LTA2LTI0IDA0OjU2OjIzLjAwMDAwMDAwMCArMDIwMAor KysgZ2NjLTQuMC4xL2djYy9jb25maWcva25ldGJzZC1nbnUuaAkyMDA1LTA3LTIzIDE2OjE3OjU3 LjAwMDAwMDAwMCArMDIwMApAQCAtMjQsNiArMjQsNyBAQAogI2RlZmluZSBMSU5VWF9UQVJHRVRf T1NfQ1BQX0JVSUxUSU5TKCkJCVwKICAgZG8JCQkJCQlcCiAgICAgewkJCQkJCVwKKwlidWlsdGlu X2RlZmluZSAoIkRFQklBTiIpOwkJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiX19OZXRCU0Rfa2VybmVs X18iKTsJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiX19HTElCQ19fIik7CQlcCiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZp bmVfc3RkICgidW5peCIpOwkJXApkaWZmIC11ciBnY2MtNC4wLjEub2xkL2djYy9jb25maWcvbGlu dXguaCBnY2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9saW51eC5oCi0tLSBnY2MtNC4wLjEub2xkL2djYy9j b25maWcvbGludXguaAkyMDA0LTA4LTA1IDExOjEyOjExLjAwMDAwMDAwMCArMDIwMAorKysgZ2Nj LTQuMC4xL2djYy9jb25maWcvbGludXguaAkyMDA1LTA3LTIzIDE2OjE2OjE0LjAwMDAwMDAwMCAr MDIwMApAQCAtNzYsNiArNzYsNyBAQAogCiAjZGVmaW5lIExJTlVYX1RBUkdFVF9PU19DUFBfQlVJ TFRJTlMoKQkJCQlcCiAgICAgZG8gewkJCQkJCQlcCisJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmUgKCJERUJJQU4i KTsJCQkJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiX19nbnVfbGludXhfXyIpOwkJCVwKIAlidWlsdGlu X2RlZmluZV9zdGQgKCJsaW51eCIpOwkJCQlcCiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmVfc3RkICgidW5peCIp OwkJCQlcCmRpZmYgLXVyIGdjYy00LjAuMS5vbGQvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9uZXRic2QuaCBnY2MtNC4w LjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9uZXRic2QuaAotLS0gZ2NjLTQuMC4xLm9sZC9nY2MvY29uZmlnL25ldGJz ZC5oCTIwMDQtMTItMDcgMjM6NDc6NDEuMDAwMDAwMDAwICswMTAwCisrKyBnY2MtNC4wLjEvZ2Nj L2NvbmZpZy9uZXRic2QuaAkyMDA1LTA3LTIzIDE2OjE2OjM4LjAwMDAwMDAwMCArMDIwMApAQCAt MjMsNiArMjMsNyBAQAogI2RlZmluZSBORVRCU0RfT1NfQ1BQX0JVSUxUSU5TX0NPTU1PTigpCQlc CiAgIGRvCQkJCQkJXAogICAgIHsJCQkJCQlcCisgICAgICBidWlsdGluX2RlZmluZSAoIkRFQklB TiIpOwkJXAogICAgICAgYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmUgKCJfX05ldEJTRF9fIik7CQlcCiAgICAgICBi dWlsdGluX2RlZmluZSAoIl9fdW5peF9fIik7CQlcCiAgICAgICBidWlsdGluX2Fzc2VydCAoInN5 c3RlbT1ic2QiKTsJCVwK --===============0359210800==-- --------------------------------------- Received: (at 319616-done) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Jul 2005 17:04:17 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 23 10:04:17 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1DwNQ9-0003ly-00; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:04:17 -0700 Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.17.13]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10006; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5236FF2B2; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP id 28411-08; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST) 11340 Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1]) by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j6NH469c026967; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST) From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 To: Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Robert Millan writes: > Package: gcc-4.0 > Version: 4.0.1-2 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > > Hi! > > It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common > trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros > (the most common one being DEBIAN). > > What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc? > I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it > to identify our distribution. > > Please consider the attached patch. - No, upstream developers should not rely on distribution specific patches. Why doesn't autconf work for things like this? - 60 packages are less than one percent of our archive. It's not common enough. - It clutters the namespace. Look, that still i386 is used in may places instead of __i386__ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]