On 2011-12-30 17:15:00 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> No, I mean that packagers can but should not use
>
> Build-Depends: gcc-snapshot
>
> CC = gcc-snapshot
>
> "Don't do that, then." you might say. But not providing a
> /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot wrapper provides people with a reminder
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Do you mean that you don't want gcc-snapshot to be in /usr/bin
> because this would yield problems on autobuilders?
No, I mean that packagers can but should not use
Build-Depends: gcc-snapshot
CC = gcc-snapshot
"Don't do that, then." you might say. But
On 2011-12-30 13:08:24 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package
> > outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It
> > would be also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having
> > the executable
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 498708 gcc-4.3/4.3.5-4
Bug #498708 [g++-4.3] [PR tree-optimization/38355] ICE with fipa-* optimization
options
Bug Marked as found in versions gcc-4.3/4.3.5-4.
> # Actually
> #found 498708 gcc-4.3/4.3.6-1
> # from branches/sid/gcc-4.3 but t
found 431014 gcc-snapshot/20111210-1
tags 431014 + wontfix
quit
Hi Adam,
Adam Borowski wrote:
> I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package
> outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It would be
> also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having t
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 431014 gcc-snapshot/20111210-1
Bug #431014 [gcc-snapshot] Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot?
Bug Marked as found in versions gcc-snapshot/20111210-1.
> tags 431014 + wontfix
Bug #431014 [gcc-snapshot] Why won't you ship /usr/bin/gcc-s
6 matches
Mail list logo
