Processed: Re: Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: found 431014 gcc-snapshot/20111210-1 Bug #431014 [gcc-snapshot] Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot? Bug Marked as found in versions gcc-snapshot/20111210-1. tags 431014 + wontfix Bug #431014 [gcc-snapshot] Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot? Added tag(s) wontfix. quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 431014: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=431014 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.132527212115659.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#431014: Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
found 431014 gcc-snapshot/20111210-1 tags 431014 + wontfix quit Hi Adam, Adam Borowski wrote: I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It would be also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having the executable named the same as the package. At least after having tested my stuff with gcc-4.2 in the past, I didn't even suspect gcc-snapshot could be any different until ./configure failed :p I suspect it's to save people from the pain of using the snapshot to build Debian packages on autobuilders when wanting to use a new feature or after running into a bug with one of the released gcc versions. Tagging wontfix to reflect the de facto status. Thanks for writing, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111230190824.GA12085@elie.Belkin
Processed: Re: g++-4.3: internal compiler error with fipa-* optimization options
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: found 498708 gcc-4.3/4.3.5-4 Bug #498708 [g++-4.3] [PR tree-optimization/38355] ICE with fipa-* optimization options Bug Marked as found in versions gcc-4.3/4.3.5-4. # Actually #found 498708 gcc-4.3/4.3.6-1 # from branches/sid/gcc-4.3 but that hasn't been uploaded. End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 498708: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=498708 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.132527444625898.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#431014: Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
On 2011-12-30 13:08:24 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Adam Borowski wrote: I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It would be also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having the executable named the same as the package. At least after having tested my stuff with gcc-4.2 in the past, I didn't even suspect gcc-snapshot could be any different until ./configure failed :p I suspect it's to save people from the pain of using the snapshot to build Debian packages on autobuilders when wanting to use a new feature or after running into a bug with one of the released gcc versions. I use gcc-snapshot as a simple end user of GCC, in order to do some portability tests of my programs (not directly related to Debian) with the latest GCC features, in particular. So, providing /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot would be natural. Do you mean that you don't want gcc-snapshot to be in /usr/bin because this would yield problems on autobuilders? But wouldn't be the autobuilders' fault? -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111230215536.gf5...@xvii.vinc17.org
Bug#431014: Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
Vincent Lefevre wrote: Do you mean that you don't want gcc-snapshot to be in /usr/bin because this would yield problems on autobuilders? No, I mean that packagers can but should not use Build-Depends: gcc-snapshot CC = gcc-snapshot Don't do that, then. you might say. But not providing a /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot wrapper provides people with a reminder to look at README.Debian and not to do that. There may be ways to make using gcc-snapshot more convenient without that problem, of course (and well justified patches are as always welcome). Hope that helps, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111230231500.GB19328@elie.Belkin
Bug#431014: Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
On 2011-12-30 17:15:00 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: No, I mean that packagers can but should not use Build-Depends: gcc-snapshot CC = gcc-snapshot Don't do that, then. you might say. But not providing a /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot wrapper provides people with a reminder to look at README.Debian and not to do that. OK. Couldn't the wrapper detect that it is being used by a packager (e.g. because some environment variable is set by the build process) and output an error in such a case? -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111231003435.gg5...@xvii.vinc17.org
