Hmm, where did this change come from?
* debian/patches/arm-tune.dpatch: Increase stack limit for configure.
It seems to be breaking the build: I can't find any version of autoconf
that actually understands the -L option. Matthias, any idea?
p.
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>
>>> This is not correct. The Debian version hasn't passed *any*
>>> validation tests.
>>
>> I don't get it. The debian package is built from the ACT
>> source.
>
> Yes, but it links against a different li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>> This is not correct. The Debian version hasn't passed *any*
>> validation tests.
>
> I don't get it. The debian package is built from the ACT
> source.
Yes, but it links against a different libc version. This *can* make a
difference, especially i
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>
>> The current gnat (3.14p) has passed validation tests
>
> This is not correct. The Debian version hasn't passed *any*
> validation tests.
I don't get it. The debian package is built from the ACT
source
Phil Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I'm really after here is some advice on where things might go with
> the packages I'm considering.
GNAT 3.14p and GNAT in GCC 3.2 are not ABI compatible. GNAT in GCC
3.2 is not complete, ASIS and GLADE are missing. GNAT in GCC 3.2 has
bugs which pr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> The current gnat (3.14p) has passed validation tests
This is not correct. The Debian version hasn't passed *any*
validation tests.
> and it is the latest stable release of gnat.
It is the latest public ACT release.
> And it is likely to be official
Your message dated Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:32:34 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#157982: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.1ds0-0pre1
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
Your message dated Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:32:34 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#157004: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.1ds0-0pre1
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
Your message dated Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:32:34 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#156734: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.1ds0-0pre1
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
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libg2c0_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb: section is overridden from libs to devel.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wrong pl
Accepted:
cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.1-0pre1_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.1-0pre1_all.deb
cpp-3.2_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb
fastjar_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fastjar_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.2.1-0pre1_i386.deb
Phil Brooke writes:
> Sam Tardieu recently orphaned a number of GNAT-related packages.
>
> I've posted ITAs on three of them: adacgi, adasockets and libgtkada. All
> three have new upstream versions (and I need to remind myself what is in
> the Debian policy regarding libraries).
>
> I might pos
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> This was reported to the Debian bug-tracking system:
>
> $ cat foo.c
> _Pragma("foo"); int y;
> #define FOO _Pragma("foo"); int x;
> FOO
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cpp-3.2 foo.c
> # 1 "foo.c"
> # 1 ""
> # 1 ""
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
> # 1 "foo.c"
> #pragma foo
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
