Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 335479 java-gcj-compat 1.0.40-1
Bug#335479: /usr/share/man/man1/rmic.1.gz is a dangling symlink
Bug reassigned from package `kaffe-common' to `java-gcj-compat'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Package: gij-4.0
Version: 4.0.2-2
Severity: normal
The package rhdb-explain currently requires a Sun JDK. Trying it with
gij leads to this:
gij -cp /usr/share/java/postgresql.jar:/usr/share/java/rhdb-explain.jar
com.redhat.rhdb.vise.Vise
** ERROR **: file
Package: cpp-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Attempting to remove or install this package fails:
izoard:~# apt-get remove cpp
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that
Hello Wolfgang,
OK is it correctly configured and do you have java-gcj-compat-dev
installed and configured (its the one providing rmic) ?
No, java-gcj-compat-dev is not installed. There are no depend, recommend or
suggest headers with java-gcj-compat.
Why is java-gcj-compat registering an
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 335479 + patch
Bug#335479: /usr/share/man/man1/rmic.1.gz is a dangling symlink
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Your message dated Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:39:04 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#335687: cpp-2.95: Failed to install due to dependency
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
THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR ABSOLUTE ATTEMPT
We have endevored to speak to you on many periods and we await your response
now!
Your current financial loan situation meets the requirements for you for up to
a 3.10% lower rate.
However, based on the fact that our previous attempts to speak to you
--- Comment #74 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-25 15:41 ---
yes, well one reason for it is that several libs (e.g. libgcc2) already use
push/pop visibility macros and it doesn't seem to harm.
furthermore I manually added push/pop macros to libstdc++ headers on a debian
system
--- Comment #75 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-25 15:44 ---
(In reply to comment #74)
furthermore I manually added push/pop macros to libstdc++ headers on a debian
system (which is broken regarding visibility support) and it made my testcase
pass.
To be clear: I have nothing
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 16:24 ---
Jakub, ping!
Are you going to post your patch from comment #4??
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ckillian at cs dot ucsd dot edu 2005-10-25 16:26
---
Created an attachment (id=10055)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10055action=view)
The test.cc file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24522
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Comment #2 from ckillian at cs dot ucsd dot edu 2005-10-25 16:26
---
Created an attachment (id=10056)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10056action=view)
preprocessor output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24522
--- You are receiving this
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2005-10-25 16:36 ---
I believe this winds up being a duplicate of PR c++/8057, which is fixed on
mainline. With the test case in the PR, I see the warning with 4.0, but I do
not see the warning on mainline.
Note that this slightly modified test
--- Comment #4 from ckillian at cs dot ucsd dot edu 2005-10-25 17:09
---
(In reply to comment #3)
I believe this winds up being a duplicate of PR c++/8057, which is fixed on
mainline. With the test case in the PR, I see the warning with 4.0, but I do
not see the warning on
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 17:51 ---
Here is a reduced testcase:
template int
void f(int i)
{
int i1 = (__extension__ ({int i2 = i; i2;}));
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 17:59 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I believe this winds up being a duplicate of PR c++/8057, which is fixed on
mainline. With the test case in the PR, I see the warning with 4.0, but I do
not see the warning on mainline.
My Dear Friend,
We are offering you possibly the best lifeInsurance
that you will ever see. We have been working directly
with the providers and quoting the LOWEST possible
rates in the industry. Just give us a try and you will view
for yourself today.
Look atUs Today:
17 matches
Mail list logo
