Bug#438816: gcc-multilib: Please provide arch-gcc binary for the multilib architecture

Matthias Klose wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: >> Package: gcc-multilib >> Version: 4:4.1.2-3 >> Severity: wishlist >> >> Could gcc-multilib provide an arch-gcc binary for the multilib architecture? >> For instance, i486-linux-gnu-gcc on x86_64? > > is there a concrete use case? Several. First, i

Bug#393275: marked as done (-O2 on Alpha makes code crash)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:55:02 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line -O2 on Alpha makes code crash 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 resp

Bug#393275: -O2 on Alpha makes code crash

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > tag 393275 + moreinfo > thanks > Please recheck with g++-4.1, g++-4.2 and gcc-snapshot from unstable. We're talking about spending a couple of days full time installing snapshots and supervising compiler runs: I'm sorry I'm quite s

Bug#408850: using flags "-fwhole-program --combine" broken

please recheck with current gcc-4.2 and gcc-snapshot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#438816: gcc-multilib: Please provide arch-gcc binary for the multilib architecture

Josh Triplett writes: > Package: gcc-multilib > Version: 4:4.1.2-3 > Severity: wishlist > > Could gcc-multilib provide an arch-gcc binary for the multilib architecture? > For instance, i486-linux-gnu-gcc on x86_64? is there a concrete use case? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] wit

Bug#421252: marked as done (Hello says `goodbye')

Your message dated Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:46:30 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#421252: Hello says `goodbye' 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 r

Processed: Re: no man pages for gcc

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 412272 + wontfix Bug#412272: no man pages for gcc There were no tags set. Tags added: wontfix > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs databa

Bug#412272: marked as done (no man pages for gcc)

Your message dated Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:34:33 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line no man pages for gcc 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 responsibilit

Bug#423740: marked as done (postgresql-pljava: FTBFS: gcjh: Command not found)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:17:10 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#423740: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.56 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

Bug#408808: marked as done (please disable gnat on armel/armeb)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:17:10 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#408808: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.56 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

Bug#423166: marked as done (gcc-defaults: Please support kfreebsd-amd64)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:17:10 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#423166: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.56 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

Bug#431103: marked as done (gnat from experimental is uninstallable)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:17:10 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#431103: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.56 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

gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15.diff.gz gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15.dsc to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15.dsc gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15_i386.deb gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2.orig.tar.gz to poo

gcc-defaults_1.56_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp_4.1.2-6_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g++-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g++_4.1.2-6_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g77_3.4.6-25_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g7

gcc-defaults override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): g++-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says standard. gcc-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says standard. gfortra

Processing of gcc-defaults_1.56_i386.changes

gcc-defaults_1.56_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-defaults_1.56.dsc gcc-defaults_1.56.tar.gz cpp_4.1.2-6_i386.deb gcc_4.1.2-6_i386.deb gcc-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb gnat_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g++_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g++-multilib_4.1.2-6_i386.deb g

gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gij-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipse

Processing of gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.changes

gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gcj-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gij-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb libgcj8-1_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb libgcj8-1-awt_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-3_mipsel.deb libgcj8-dev_

Some of your Debian packages might need attention

Dear Debian GCC maintainers, The following possible problem(s) were detected in the package(s) you maintain in Debian: === gcc-4.1: = This package has 2 RC bug(s) more than 30 days old: - #428509 gcc-4.1 post 4.1.2-8 breaks glibc compilation - #429487

Bug#438504: please help investigate potential gcc / kernel ICE on powerpc32 machines in lenny/sid.

Le jeudi 23 août 2007 à 09:55 +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME a écrit : > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:41:22AM +0200, xavier grave wrote: > >The linux 2.6.21 build without problem on my unstable distribution. > >The build produced a lot of .deb file with version 2.6.21-2 > > > >Hope it helped, please

Bug#438504: please help investigate potential gcc / kernel ICE on powerpc32 machines in lenny/sid.

Hi, On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:41:22AM +0200, xavier grave wrote: >The linux 2.6.21 build without problem on my unstable distribution. >The build produced a lot of .deb file with version 2.6.21-2 > >Hope it helped, please fell free to ask me any other tests you think are >relevant. Did you have /

Bug#438504: please help investigate potential gcc / kernel ICE on powerpc32 machines in lenny/sid.

Le mercredi 22 août 2007 à 11:16 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : -- snip -- > > > Could you do : > > > > > > apt-get build-dep linux-2.6 > > > apt-get source linux-2.6 > > > cd linux-2.6-2.6.22 > > > dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc -B > > > > It worked here without PB. Here are some in