On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
Please consider the attached patch which adds a udeb for libgcc1
containing only libgcc_s.so.1.
In case we do decide on inclusion in gcc, here is an updated patch for 4.4
and the additional patch for 4.5.
Changes:
- added libgcc[246] udebs
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 27.01.2010 23:26, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Matthias Klose wrote:
- did you consider building the udeb from a separate source
package, build-depending on gcc-4.4-source?
No, I had not considered
Source: gcc-4.4
Version: 1:4.4.3-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: d-i patch
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-b...@lists.debian.org
Please consider the attached patch which adds a udeb for libgcc1 containing
only libgcc_s.so.1. That file is needed for the (directfb based) graphical
installer because of
Thanks a lot for the quick reply.
On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Matthias Klose wrote:
The patch itself looks ok, some other questions:
- did you consider building the udeb from a separate source package,
build-depending on gcc-4.4-source?
No, I had not considered that. It's an option
Package: gcc-4.3
Tags: upstream, patch
I'm filing this BR against gcc-4.3, but according to upstream it affects
*all* versions of gcc, and in all Debian releases!
During compilations using gcc-4.3 of the upstream 2.6.31-rc4 kernel, I
twice noticed the following warning:
{standard input}:
Some additional information.
This seems to be a very tricky issue.
I can reliably reproduce it when I run debuild as normal user (using
fakeroot), for example with a loop in debian/rules running
dh_installdocs:
cnt=1; while :; do echo $cnt; dh_installdocs || echo Error; cnt=$((cnt +
1)); done
Package: gcc-4.2
Version: 4.2.2-3
Severity: important
At least gcc-4.2 and gcc-4.1 but probably also earlier versions are affected
by a bug discussed on the linux-kernel list [1].
The following test program will result in OMG,-10==10 in linux! when
compiled with both gcc-4.1 and gcc-4.2.
int
tags 452108 + patch
clone 452108 -1 -2 -3
reassign -1 gcc-4.1 4.1.2-17
reassign -2 gcc-3.3 1:3.3.6-15
reassign -3 gcc-3.4 3.4.6-6
thanks
On Tuesday 20 November 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
The following test program will result in OMG,-10==10 in linux! when
compiled with both gcc-4.1 and gcc-4.2
found 452113 4.1.1-21
found 452114 3.3.5-13
found 452114 3.3.6-15
found 452115 3.4.3-13sarge1
found 452115 3.4.6-5
thanks
On Tuesday 20 November 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
Just tested that gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 are also affected.
Sarge and Etch versions of 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1 are affected as well.
gcc
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4:4.1.2-6
Severity: serious
Forwarded: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31944
Tags: upstream
The build of the 2-6-20-1-parisc64-smp kernel FTBFS because of an endless
loop due to what appears to be a gcc issue:
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.2-5
Severity: critical
Tags: d-i
The upgrade of gcc from 4.1.2-4 to 4.1.2-5 is breaking builds of the
installer. The problem seems to be that a stripped library no longer
contains dynamic symbol information.
I've traced this to the following series of commands,
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 22:09, Matthias Klose wrote:
does the installer use glibc-2.5?
Yes, it does for daily builds based on unstable (which is where this BR
occurs). But that has not changed: we were already using 2.5 since before
gcc-4.1 4.1.2-5.
pgpORJqYTmTAx.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of upgrade support only;
i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
on systems running sarge 2.4 kernels, not because we'll provide support
for 2.4 in etch.
What
I've reassigned this bug from the kernel to gcc-4.0 as we feel that the
solution chosen in the kernel packaging is not really a fix, but a
workaround.
As tests have shown that the problem does not exist when the same kernel
is compiled with gcc-3.3, the real bug is likely in gcc-4.0.
I've
On Wednesday 07 September 2005 23:21, you wrote:
It would be extremely helpful if you could find a way to reproduce
this that does not require root... any ideas?
Well, I think the problem can also be reproduced outside a
debian-installer environment (getting linux-image-2.6.12-1-386 (2.6.12-2)
15 matches
Mail list logo
