Comments regarding gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg_4.1.1-nf1_i386.changes

2006-09-28 Thread Anthony Towns
>From the Description: This documentation is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, so it can't be part of Debian main. That's not correct -- it's the fact that it includes invariant sections that precludes it from being part of Debian main. Cheers, aj -- To UNS

Re: updating gcc-3.3 to the final gcc-3.3.2 release for sarge

2003-09-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:28:19AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >FYI: Note that I've forced the current version of gcc-3.3 into testing > >for tomorrow's dinstall; in spite of it being broken on arm, and unbuilt > >on m68k. This will e

Re: updating gcc-3.3 to the final gcc-3.3.2 release for sarge

2003-09-25 Thread Anthony Towns
DE, so we still need a properly fixed gcc-3.3 ASAP. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! --

Bug#192347: gcc-3.3: gpc-2.1-3.3-doc not built from source?

2003-05-08 Thread Anthony Towns
mething weird's going on and ask first; but the end result is that it needs to be removed or updated either way. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Bug#192347: gcc-3.3: gpc-2.1-3.3-doc not built from source?

2003-05-07 Thread Anthony Towns
Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3.20030409-0pre7 Severity: serious gpc-2.1-3.3 | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre8 | unstable | alpha, hppa, ia64, ... ^ gpc-2.1-3.3-doc | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre6 | unstable | all ^ Is this deliberate? Th

Re: update_excuses: -gcc

2003-04-16 Thread Anthony Towns
4:03: maybe-failed) * 1:3.3ds4-0pre4 (arm) (latest build at Apr 15 19:36: maybe-failed) * 1:3.3ds4-0pre4 (m68k) (latest build at Apr 15 21:49: maybe-failed) The latest gcc-snapshot seems to have failed on m68k (but built fine everywhere else), fwiw. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[

Re: update_excuses: -gcc

2003-04-15 Thread Anthony Towns
us on 3.3 for sarge", and work from there. Whatever happens, we do need to have a working toolchain for all architectures in testing and unstable (and stable of course) as continually as possible; if 3.3 is the best way of achieving that, that's great. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns &l

Re: gcc-3.3 package upload

2003-03-20 Thread Anthony Towns
#x27;re invited to comment on -devel about the plans for the 3.2 v 3.3 ABI issues, and enjoy the wonders of transparency. > PS: aj, IMO release managers are dictators, but it is said that some > of them are benevolent :) Yes, and it's often said that everyone's a critic too. La

Bug#168888: cmath breakage with g++-3.2

2002-11-19 Thread Anthony Towns
specific bits/mathdef.h should be removed instead? (If you're stupid like me, "#if __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH - 0" is like "#ifndef", except it treats defining it to 0 the same as not defining it all) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.hum

Re: G++ 3.0

2001-07-23 Thread Anthony Towns
oc, g77-3.0-doc, gcc-3.0-base, gcc-3.0-doc, libstdc++3-doc (from 3.0.1.ds0-0pre010721) Those debs also don't appear to be built anymore? Is that a mistake or should they be removed too? Also the i386 debs seem to be out of date (also, the i386 autobuilder is hung atm). Cheers, aj

Bug#103980: Severities

2001-07-16 Thread Anthony Towns
severity 103980 serious thanks > # severity important is enough to be release critical, but it does not > # hinder the update system to replace the gcc-3.0 prerelease in > # testing with the final release. important isn't release critical. Release critical means the package can't be released in i

[loic.leguyader@laposte.net: Bug#105223: GCC failed to compile this programme]

2001-07-14 Thread Anthony Towns
reassign 105223 gcc thanks Good spotting, and the english is fine. Only thing that was wrong was it was against "base" instead of gcc, but that's fixed with this mesage. - Forwarded message from loic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: loic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Bug#105223: GCC failed to c

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

2001-03-27 Thread Anthony Towns
-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't. Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably worthwhile... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don&#x