As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
(e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
(e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So IMHO
bugs should be still opened
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
(e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
(e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:29:59AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
(e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
(e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get
removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense.
Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody,
sarge, sid, etc...).
Hi,
Adam Heath wrote:
These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream version.
Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a newer upstream
hasn't been uploaded(3.3).
You shouldn't forget that gcc 3.2 is still default on sparc...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get
removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense.
Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody,
Rene Engelhard writes:
You shouldn't forget that gcc 3.2 is still default on sparc...
s/still/again/ now, s/3.2/3.3/ soon.
Jamin W. Collins writes:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get
removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense.
Could tag them with the release name that affected release
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions
of gcc (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in
later version (e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthias Klose wrote:
well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the
changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the
bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2
have been closed when 3.3 became the
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
Jamin W. Collins writes:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get
removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:59:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open?
The obvious reason is so that there's a list of known issues with the
package. Users might find this a valuable resource.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew
Adam Heath writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthias Klose wrote:
well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the
changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the
bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2
have been
Hi, Adam Heath wrote:
What if bugs filed against older versions get cloned to the newer package, the
newer package closes the cloned bugs, and when the old package is removed, the
bugs get closed?
Whatever for?
Status before this: We have a bunch of open bugs against OLD_VERSION.
Status
14 matches
Mail list logo
