>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
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
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!
--
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!''
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
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 <[
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
#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
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
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
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
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
-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
13 matches
Mail list logo
