Bug#122103: Weekly Newsletter

2007-07-17 Thread Gayle
Have you wished for a expensive watch or piece of fine Jewerly? We have the answer for you! We stock all the high scale for a very small fraction of the cost. www.lemmuw.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

gcc-4.2 4.2-20070712-1 MIGRATED to testing

2007-07-17 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the gcc-4.2 source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 4.2-20070627-1 Current version: 4.2-20070712-1 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more inf

Bug#433539: gcc-4.1: profiling support on hurd

2007-07-17 Thread Michael Casadevall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gcc-4.1 Version: 4.1.2-13 Severity: important Tags: patch Profiling support on Hurd has been broken for some time due to a mistake within GCC's spec files. I've included a patch that change

Re: cruft in gnat-4.2 upload

2007-07-17 Thread Ludovic Brenta
Matthias Klose writes: > There's much cruft in the last gnat-4.2 upload, bringing the size of > the diff,gz to nearly 5mb ... instead of 390k for the gcc-4.2 > package. You were the one complaining about the big diff's in the > gcc-4.1 source ;-) Thanks, I'll look into this. It seems I still have

Bug#433447: Segmentation fault on compilation of kernel

2007-07-17 Thread Patrick Winnertz
Package: gcc-4.1 Version: 4.1.1-21 Severity: normal Hey I've tried today to compile the linux-source-2.6.18 with this compiler and it failed with this output: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function �dlm_mig_lockres_worker�: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:1433: internal compiler error: Segmentation

cruft in gnat-4.2 upload

2007-07-17 Thread Matthias Klose
There's much cruft in the last gnat-4.2 upload, bringing the size of the diff,gz to nearly 5mb ... instead of 390k for the gcc-4.2 package. You were the one complaining about the big diff's in the gcc-4.1 source ;-) Plus the b-d on the exact version of gcc-4.2-source seems to be less than ideal.