Your message dated Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:38:35 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#110231:
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
Well it seems the www.spawndevices.com $15 - $25 buck boots and emu\'s made a
few of you happy good... glad to hear it... Well the special for you this
weekend is all Combo Packages are $79.99... Your choice an Emu or a Bootstrap
(DPBB) with either a Dual Crystal ISO or a WT2-X unlooper...
As far as I see it, the issue isn't closed at all,
however if Matthias believes this issue to be closed, I can only assume that
this package cannot be installed properly on debian in any way with my
configuration. This too is a pity as debian has run very well on my system
for some time
G++ emits strange warning. It is really annoying me, because I include similar
header to many files.
This is the code.
=== begin ===
template class _TTN, class _TNK
class A
{
//public:
private:
typedef _TTN _TN;
};
template class _NY, class _TN
class B : virtual public A _TN, _NY
{
_TN func ()
I didn't whine about it. I replied almost immediately to Matthias with the
responses from two different sets of apt-get. In fact, I am *still* not
whining. I got an email saying the issue had been closed. Now correct me
if I'm wrong, g++ isn't going to install on my system in it's current
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:20:06AM -0400, Scott Johnson wrote:
I didn't whine about it. I replied almost immediately to Matthias with the
responses from two different sets of apt-get.
Which no one else saw. It would be a lot more clear if that had gone
to the BTS. All I saw was a suggestion
Which no one else saw. It would be a lot more clear if that had gone
to the BTS. All I saw was a suggestion to try something and a reply
complaining about how no one was helping you.
I received the message about replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] after I got
the initial reply from Matthias. I didn't
Installing:
gobjc-2.95_2.95.4-0.010827_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gobjc-2.95_2.95.4-0.010827_i386.deb
gcc-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010827_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010827_all.deb
protoize-2.95_2.95.4-0.010827_i386.deb
to
Installing:
fastjar_3.0.2-0pre010826_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/fastjar_3.0.2-0pre010826_sparc.deb
libgcc1_3.0.2-0pre010826_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libgcc1_3.0.2-0pre010826_sparc.deb
gcc-3.0-sparc64_3.0.2-0pre010826_sparc.deb
to
Your message dated Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:59:10 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#110191: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds4-0.010827
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
Installing:
libgcj2-dev_3.0.2-0pre010826_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libgcj2-dev_3.0.2-0pre010826_powerpc.deb
g++-3.0_3.0.2-0pre010826_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/g++-3.0_3.0.2-0pre010826_powerpc.deb
libstdc++3_3.0.2-0pre010826_powerpc.deb
to
Scott Johnson writes:
- where did you find libc6-2.2.3-6 in the stable/potato dist?
- why isn't libstdc++2.10-dev 2.95.[34] found?
All I've ever done was install from apt-get upgrade/dist-upgrade. As this
is a semi-production type system I've tried to be fairly careful with it's
What are the versions on libc6, libc6-dev, g++ (if already installed),
libstdc++*, libstdc++*-dev (if already installed), gcc, gcc-3.0, gcc-2.95
and gcc-3.0-base?
ns1:/etc/apt# dpkg -s libc6 | grep ^Version
Version: 2.2.3-6
ns1:/etc/apt# dpkg -s gcc | grep ^Version
Version:
13 matches
Mail list logo
