Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Bug #797324 [src:gcc-5] gcc-5: please support multiarch path to
kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Bug reassigned from package 'src:gcc-5' to 'src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers'.
No longer marked as found in versions gcc-5/5.2.1-15.
Ignoring r
Control: reassign -1 src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo + pending
Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> The multilib files are actually in /usr/include/x86_64-kfreebsd-gnu, yet
> it is looking at /usr/include/i386-kfreebsd-gnu instead.
>
> I don't know if this was intentional, but it i
Control: tags -1 - patch + moreinfo
Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08/31/2015 03:42 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> >> +
> >> +ifeq ($(DEB_TARGET_ARCH_OS),kfreebsd)
> >> + : # multilib builds without b-d on gcc-multilib (used in
> >> FLAGS_FOR_TARGET)
> >> + ln -sf /usr/include/$(DEB_TARGET_MULTIAR
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 - patch + moreinfo
Bug #797324 [src:gcc-5] gcc-5: please support multiarch path to
kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Removed tag(s) patch.
Bug #797324 [src:gcc-5] gcc-5: please support multiarch path to
kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
797324: http
Actually, I think I've figured it out. It looks like bugs 770025, which
was an extension of bug 736607, were intended to force gcc-4.7 to be
upgraded to the Jessie version. However, these changes were then trumped
by bug 765379 which just straight-up removed gcc-4.7 from Debian Jessie.
https:/
Package: gcc-4.9-base
Version: 4.9.2-10
Debian bug 770025 added a "Breaks: gcc-4.7-base (< 4.7.3)" header to
gcc-4.9, because it was found in bug 736607 (which relates to gcc-4.8)
that the package manager would sometimes leave the system with an
older-release version of gcc instead of using th
Could someone explain the reasoning behind bug 770025 to me?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=770025
I'm planning to upgrade from Debian 7 to 8. Why is it necessary for
gcc-4.9-base to force the removal of gcc-4.7-base, when these packages
share no files in common?
In my part
Hello,
2015-09-04 3:38 GMT+02:00 Rob Browning :
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> You mean -O0, perhaps?
>
> Actually, there may be a mistake in the current rules file which is
> causing it to always build without an -O flag...
>
> Changing the rules to work correctly (to use -O2 as you mentioned)
> ap
On 09/04/2015 03:38 AM, Rob Browning wrote:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> You mean -O0, perhaps?
>
> Actually, there may be a mistake in the current rules file which is
> causing it to always build without an -O flag...
>
> Changing the rules to work correctly (to use -O2 as you mentioned)
> appe
9 matches
Mail list logo
