gcc-5_5.3.1-13_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2016-03-24 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:43:10 +0100 Source: gcc-5 Binary: gcc-5-base libgcc1 libgcc1-dbg libgcc2 libgcc2-dbg libgcc-5-dev libgcc4 libgcc4-dbg lib64gcc1 lib64gcc1-dbg lib64gcc-5-dev lib32gcc1 lib32gcc1-dbg lib32gcc-5-dev l

Processing of gcc-5_5.3.1-13_source.changes

2016-03-24 Thread Debian FTP Masters
gcc-5_5.3.1-13_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-5_5.3.1-13.dsc gcc-5_5.3.1-13.diff.gz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)

Bug#819176: gcc-5: Please avoid storing -fdebug-prefix-map in DW_AT_producer (for better reproducibility)

2016-03-24 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Package: gcc-5 Version: 5.3.1-12 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: buildpath embedding the build path in binaries makes it harder to get byte-for-byte reproducibility, because the build has to happen in the same directory. gcc by default em

Bug#818996: Please enable -Wabi-tag warning for C++ programs

2016-03-24 Thread Simon McVittie
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 at 08:57:22 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > "What a fine mess we're in" comes to mind right about now... The transition within Debian was no fun either: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libstdc%2B%2B-cxx11;users=debian-gcc@lists.debian.org

Bug#818996: Please enable -Wabi-tag warning for C++ programs

2016-03-24 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > [Removing debian-devel from Cc] > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 at 13:31:32 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> If you want to change that, that change should be made in dpkg-buildflags. > > From the original report: > >> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 at 10:34:2

Bug#818996: Please enable -Wabi-tag warning for C++ programs

2016-03-24 Thread Jeffrey Walton
>> - compile and link a program that uses libfoo and libbar with uvw compiler > > Let me follow up with some real result from a minimal test case. > >> (but I'm probably getting the sequence of events totally wrong so please >> specify what is actually going on) > > Not at all. Its a confluence of