Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:18:50PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Brian M. Carlson writes:
>> > The copyright file includes a copy of the GNU Free Documentation
>> > License, which has been judged by debian-legal to be non-free. Please
>> > remove t
Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Nahmias) writes:
>
>> FWIW, I just tried to compile on escher with:
>>
>> $gcc --version
>> gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 20040125 (prerelease) (Debian)
>>
>> no good. I guess I'll have to wait until 3.4 is uploaded.
>
> I'll build it on my o
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3.3-1
Severity: serious
This must be a recent regression as either Phil Blundell or Othmar
Pasteka built earlier versions of xfree86 when they were in
experimental without problems.
I've made the preprocessed source available here:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/mi
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20040208-1
Severity: serious
"[mips, mipsel]" should obviously be "[mips mipsel]"
| Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20040208-1 on rameau by sbuild/arm 1.170.4
| Build started at 20040212-0828
|
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:43:14PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
>> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Clint Adams writes:
>> >> Package: gcc
>> >> Version: 4:3.3.1-2
>> &g
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clint Adams writes:
>> Package: gcc
>> Version: 4:3.3.1-2
>> File: /usr/bin/gcc
>>
>> Please make the sparc gcc wrapper optional for those of us who would
>> prefer a symlink to gcc-3.3.
>
> why is it annoying? it just works.
Not really. It, AIUI, bl
"sirl at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From sirl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-14
> 18:17 ---
> Out of interest, since you are still using XFree86-4.2.1, have you made sure
> you compiled XFree86 with -fno-strict-aliasing, a thing that is do
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 3.2.3ds9-5
Severity: serious
| gcc-3.2_3.2.3ds9-5_arm.changes
| REJECT
| Rejected: libstdc++5_3.2.3-5_arm.deb: old version (1:3.3-3) in unstable >=
new version (1:3.2.3-5) targeted at unstable.
| Rejected: libstdc++5_3.2.3-5_arm.deb: old version (1:3.3-2) in testing >= n
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings:
>
> dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
>
> Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile
> using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is re
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-3
Severity: important
This is a regression from 2.95; it's also broken in 3.2. gcc-snapshot
(20030531-2) fails with a different ICE (should I report that too?).
Reducing optimization doesn't help. -save-temps output is available
from:
http://people.debian.org/~
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3-2
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gdbm-1.8.3$ gcc -O2 -Wall -c gdbmopen.c
| gdbmopen.c: In function `gdbm_open':
| gdbmopen.c:15: warning: `lock_val' might be used uninitialized in this
function
| fstat (dbf->desc, &file_stat);
|
| if ((flags & GDBM_OPENMASK) == GDBM_READ
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3-2
Severity: important
This is a regression from 2.95 and 3.2; there doesn't seem to be a
recent gcc-snapshot package to test with. Compiling with -O1 makes
the ICE go away. -save-temps output available here:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/gcc/Xrm.i.bz2
(It's 312k
[ Dropped non-Debian lists. ]
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, dwarf exceptions are clearly superior to sjlj.
> We've never _released_ a distro compiled with 3.2 so we can break
> the binary ABI without major repurcussions.
Err, no you can't. Redoing the C++ trans
Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> cpp-3.3_3.3-2_sparc.deb
> to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3-2_sparc.deb
Could you please warn me when you do byhand uploads of packages, like
this? The buildd's wasted a good 8 hours on this so far and probably
would have wasted even more if I ha
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3-0pre7
Severity: important
This is a regression from gcc-2.95; it's fixed by reducing
optimization to -O1 or less. Both gcc-snapshot (20030410-1) and
gcc-3.2 have the same problem.
-save-temps output is available from:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/gcc/fmopl.i.bz2
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -MYCC = gcc-3.2 -m64
> +MYCC = gcc-3.3 -m64
Don't forget a build-depends on gcc-3.3 if you do this...
--
James
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Synopsis: [3.2 regression] [arm] ICE building binutils-multiarch on arm-linux
>>
>> State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
>> State-Changed-By: rearnsha
>> State-Changed-When: Mon Mar 24 11:09:04 2003
>> State-Changed-Why:
>
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 3.2.2-0pre8
Severity: important
This is a regression from gcc-2.95 but is fixed by gcc-snapshot
(20030129-1). Compiling with -O1 makes the ICE go away. I've made the
-save-temps output available here:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/predicates.i.gz
(It's 190k uncompre
Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gcc-3.2
> Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre3
> Severity: important
> Tags: sid
>
>
> ltp fails to build from source due to the following error in gcc.
Can you try with gcc-snapshot (to see if it's already fixed) and with
gcc-2.95 (to confirm it's a reg
Package: g++-3.2
Version: 3.2.2-0pre6
Severity: important
This is a regression from gcc-2.95 and isn't fixed by gcc-snapshot
(20030118-1). Compiling without optimization (-O0) makes the ICE go
away. I've made the -save-temps output available here:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/fpu_ieee.ii.gz
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 3.2.2-0pre6
Severity: important
This is a regression from gcc-2.95 and isn't fixed by gcc-snapshot
(20030118-1). Compiling without optimization (-O0) makes the ICE go
away. I've made the -save-temps output available here:
http://people.debian.org/~troup/reference.i.gz
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.2ds3-0pre3
I noticed a local buildd had hung while building gcc-3.2; I checked
why and it turns out the evil logwatch.sh script hadn't died even tho
the build had finished. The script is fairly clearly broken (you trap
the SIGHUP you send it but then don't exit fro
rejected at the request of the maintainer
--
James
===
If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this email.
Your rejected files are in incoming/REJECT/. (Some may also be in
incoming/ if your .changes file was unparsable.)
Package: g++-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.1-0pre4
The following ICE is a regression from 2.95 and only happens with >=
-O2.
| Automatic build of magnus_4.1.1-beta-3 on elara by sbuild/arm 1.169
| Build started at 20021106-0703
| **
Hi,
I've mentioned this before, but it's still around and it seems like a
3.2-as-default show stopper so I thought I'd remind you and make the
others aware in case they weren't...
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat test.C
| #include
|
| int main (int argc, char **argv)
| {
| printf("H
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup writes:
> > Package: gcc-3.2
> > Version: 1:3.2.1ds0-0pre1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: evil doko made python2.2-dev depend on g++-3.2 :-P
>
> who to ask to change my login? maybe &#
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.1ds0-0pre1
Severity: serious
Justification: evil doko made python2.2-dev depend on g++-3.2 :-P
-L doesn't seem to be a valid option for either autoconf or the
wrapper... This is especially a problem because python2.2-dev now
deps on g++-3.2 and the lack of it on ar
gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-5_arm.changes uploaded successfully to auric.debian.org
along with the files:
gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
libgcc1_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
cpp-3.0_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
protoize_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
fixincludes_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
gobjc-3.0_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
libobjc1_3.0.4-5_arm.deb
gcj-3.0
gcc-defaults_0.19_i386.changes uploaded successfully to auric.debian.org
along with the files:
gcc-defaults_0.19.dsc
gcc-defaults_0.19.tar.gz
cpp_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
gcc_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
g++_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
gobjc_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
g77_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
gpc_2.95.4-12_i386.deb
gcc-defaults_0.19_arm.changes uploaded successfully to auric.debian.org
along with the files:
cpp_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
gcc_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
g++_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
gobjc_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
g77_3.0-3_arm.deb
gpc_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
chill_2.95.4-12_arm.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queu
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-1
Perhaps not an issue, but I thought I'd at least let you know.
| Unpacking replacement gcc-3.0 ...
| dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled:
| trying to overwrite `/lib/64/libgcc_s_64.so', which is also in package
libgcc1-sparc64
--
Jame
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020209
Severity: serious
gcc-3.0-base didn't get built by any of my buildds making new gcc-3.0
nicely uninstallable...
--
James
gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds2-0pre020209_arm.changes uploaded successfully to
auric.debian.org
along with the files:
libgcc1_3.0.4-0pre020209_arm.deb
cpp-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020209_arm.deb
protoize_3.0.4-0pre020209_arm.deb
fixincludes_3.0.4-0pre020209_arm.deb
gobjc-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020209_arm.deb
libobjc1_3
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 0.17
Severity: serious
Justification: ia64 being out of date will keep it out of testing
AFAICS this is a packaging error and not katie going crazy ?
| To: Debian/IA64 non-US Build Daemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: gc
gcc-2.95_2.95.4.ds8-1_arm.changes uploaded successfully to auric.debian.org
along with the files:
gcc-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
cpp-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
g++-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
protoize-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
gobjc-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
g77-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.deb
chill-2.95_2.95.4-1_arm.
Hi,
Maybe this should be a bug report; who knows. Basically, sparc can't
build gcc-3.0 and won't be able to (AFAICS) unless a) somone mucks
around with things by hand or b) something changes in the gcc-3.0
source package. The problem is that the existing cpp-3.0 (3.0.2) for
sparc <<-depends on a
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.2-3
All the -3.0 packages don't depend, recommend or even suggest the
packages making it possible (especially on hppa where -3.0 is
the default compiler) to install just gcc-3.0 and not have a gcc
symlink which is probably not a good thing?
--
James
Package: g++
Version: 1:2.96-5
Severity: important
I wasn't able to verify that it compiles with g++-3.0 due to the
library incompatability problems, but I suspect it does.
| Automatic build of ddt_0.5.2 on caballero by sbuild/ia64 1.159
| Build started at 20011014-1730
|
Package: gcc-2.95-doc
Version: 2.95.4-0.010902
Severity: minor
[Only a documentation issue and 3.0 drops support for these
non-portable flags in any event...]
>From the info file:
| `-malign-loops=NUM'
| Align loops to a 2 raised to a NUM byte boundary. If
| `-malign-loops' is not spe
Package: gcc-3.0-sparc64
Version: 3.0.2-0pre010862
gcc-3.0-sparc64 seems to kill gobjc-3.0...
| (base)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc-3.0 -c test.m
| gcc-3.0: test.m: Objective-C compiler not installed on this system
| (base)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo apt-get remove gcc-3.0-sparc64
| Reading Package List
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The context provided is a bit short.
http://vore.debian.org/~buildd/logs/gcc-3.0_1:3.0.1ds0-0pre010727_20010728-1859
> Since I do not have access to mips and sparc machines which fulfill
> the build requirements, I have to ask my co-maintainers ...
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.1ds0-0pre010727
Severity: serious
Build-Depends-Indep-ing on graphviz violates policy (2.1.2)...
--
James
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This had to be done since jenna does removals based on version
> numbers and if someone (say, doko@ ;-) uploaded a source package
> with an older version than previously existed, it would be
> auto-deleted in favour of the existent
Moin,
FYI katie has been changed to check source versions just like it
already does for binary versions, i.e. every source upload must have a
newer version than the ones currently in the target suite(s).
This had to be done since jenna does removals based on version numbers
and if someone (say, d
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 3.0.ds9-4
Severity: serious
Help?
| Automatic build of gcc-3.0_3.0.ds9-4 on vore by sbuild/sparc 1.159
| Build started at 20010704-1955
| **
[...]
| ** Using build dependencies supplied by pack
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: [current]
Severity: serious
This package was built with a broken version of dpkg-dev (1.9.13 or
1.9.14); as a result the source package is unextractable with stable's
dpkg-source.
Please rebuild the package with a newer fixed version of dpkg-dev.
FWIW, any future u
[Bcc-ed to the list of current maintainers of multi-maintainer
packages I'm aware of]
Hi,
Both katie and dpkg-dev have finally been fixed to support multiple
maintainers properly. To take advantage of this all you need is
dpkg-dev (>= 1.9.14)[1] and to add an 'Uploaders:' field to the first
par
47 matches
Mail list logo
