PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
Package: cpp
Severity: serious
The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
this doesn't make sense. you are not
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:16:41AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
/usr/share/misc/common-licenses
/usr/share/common-licenses
Foo.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `'
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
Severity: minor
Tags: upstream
/* this is foo.c */
#include stdarg.h
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
extern const char *program_name;
static void printf_checked(const char *fmt, ...)
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] fileSystem, stdout, stderr, errno; @*/
/[EMAIL
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
/usr/share/misc/common-licenses
gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
/usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore redundant
And in any case, it seems to be
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
/usr/share/misc/common-licenses
gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
/usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore redundant
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-3.2-base_3.2.3-6_i386.deb: package says priority is important, override
says optional.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and
Accepted:
cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-6_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-6_all.deb
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-6_i386.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g++-3.2_3.2.3-6_i386.deb
g77-3.2-doc_3.2.3-6_all.deb
to
Accepted:
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g++-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
g77-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g77-3.2_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
gcc-3.2-base_3.2.3-6_hppa.deb
to
Your message dated Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:02:55 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#196505: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-6
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
Your message dated Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:02:55 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#199866: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-6
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
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11368
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11370
roger at eyesopen dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11368
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11368
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-05
17:15 ---
Updated patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg00534.html
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 08:02:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Hi Branden,
for tracjking down the xfree86 miscompilation ...
- which directory should I checkout, when I want to follow the 4.3
branch?
Check out what, from where?
As far as we know the XDM authorization compile problem
Branden Robinson writes:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 08:02:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Hi Branden,
for tracjking down the xfree86 miscompilation ...
- which directory should I checkout, when I want to follow the 4.3
branch?
Check out what, from where?
As far as we know the
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is i386-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7378
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 88
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.mike/eh33.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.mike/eh33.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.mike/eh50.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.mike/eh50.C Execution test
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7187
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Branden Robinson writes:
As far as we know the XDM authorization compile problem affects both
4.2.1 and 4.3.0, so you could just grab the latest xfree86 out of
unstable.
at least with the current gcc-3.3 in unstable I could
[ Please CC replies to me. ]
Hi guys,
I am developing a project with eCos from my i386 host, with the target
system being a PC floppy (and therefore i386 as well).
The problem is that despite using -nostdlib whilst compiling, I still
get __cxa_atexit and __dso_handle defined in my .o files
dhazeghi at yahoo dot com 2003-07-06 01:31
---
Confirmed with mainline (20030705) and current branch.
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
23 matches
Mail list logo
