Control: notfixed -1 4.9.0-3
Control: reopen -1
Sorry, I forgot to include a demo in my report. I really do have the
latest sid version of libstdc++6 installed, and this *still* happens:
naesten@hydrogen:~/hacking% sudo apt-get install libstdc++6/sid
Reading package lists... Done
Building
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:4.7.2-5
Severity: normal
Control: affects -1 gdb
Dear Maintainer,
GDB (since version 7.5) could take advantage of SystemTap probes in
libgcc/libstc++ to allow next and the like to work properly when
exceptions are thrown, even without the debugging symbols installed.
Package: libstdc++6
Version: 4.9.0-3
Severity: important
Control: affects -1 gdb
Dear doko,
On May 6, you NMU'd gdb to make it build against Python 3. Which would
be all well and good, except for one thing: the pretty-printers for
libstdc++ are *still* using Python 2 syntax.
(Any particular
I found another patch for the part where the pretty-printers won't load
at all, starting at
http://sources.debian.net/src/gcc-4.7/4.7.3-7/debian/patches/gcc-multiarch.diff#L3:
Index: b/src/libstdc++-v3/python/hook.in
===
---
Package: gcc-doc
Version: 5:4
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
When I type info gcc, rather than the GCC manual, I get a (really bad)
rendition of the gccgo manpage.
It seems that the symlink /usr/share/info/gcc.info.gz -
gcc-4.7.info.gz is insufficient, probably because it still says this
Okay, here's a patch against 4.8.1-4 that seems to work to split out the
debug symbols. I'm not sure why you want this, though: it doesn't seem
terribly important to be able to install a debug version of libstdc++
that from a different gcc-X.Y, and it makes the packaging just that much
messier
Control: tags -1 + patch
This patch seems to be sufficient to fix the issue in gcc-4.8; it should
be fairly clear how to do the same for the others:
pgpmsVXW698QF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
diff -u gcc-4.8-4.8.1/debian/control.m4 gcc-4.8-4.8.1/debian/control.m4
---
Huh. I never even noticed that other library was in there. What's it
for, and where's it documented? (And why in the world is there a static
version of it?)
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Package: libstdc++6-4.7-dbg
Version: 4.7.2-5
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
With this package installed, running GDB on programs using libstdc++
is giving a confusing error message, which gives the impression that
they haven't loaded, even though they actually do load:
,
|
Package: libstdc++6
Version: 4.7.2-5
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The debug symbols for this package should really be in a package named
libstdc++6-dbg, not a different libstdc++6-X.Y-dbg package for every
gcc-X.Y source package.
The status quo makes the symbols hard to install, hard to
Package: gcc-doc
Version: 5:4
Severity: normal
Dear Guo,
It looks like you've got another DMUA flag to get rid of ... hopefully
Steffen gets you into http://ftp-master.debian.org/dm.txt soon :-).
Oh, and it looks like you've come up with a clever trick for determining
the appropriate packages
On Oct 21, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Guo Yixuan wrote:
The packages in unstable are updated to 4.7 (or 4.6 on some archs)[1],
I actually knew this; I can't think why I didn't say so in the report.
and waiting for release team's unblock grant.
This part I didn't know. Thanks!
Thanks, also, for
Package: gcc-doc
Version: 5:3
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainer,
I've noticed that gcc-doc is still depending on the documentation for
the aging GCC 4.4...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1,
I asked the BTS to CC debian-gcc on this, but the message seems to
have gotten lost or something, so:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Subject: Bug#660955: RFS: gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg/4.6.2-1 --
documentation for GCC
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org
wrote:
In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
used git repos to managed entire thing.
I've just created
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org wrote:
I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when.
Hello Samuel
The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete.
Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org
wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7
Dear GCC Maintainers,
Perhaps I should have CC'd you in the first place, but here's a copy now:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Subject: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
To: debian-ment...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as
found in experimental). Could you do this? Nikita, could you sponsor the
We appreciate that the Debian project is even more zealous about free
software than RMS himself, and recognize that the GFDL, when used with
invariant sections and/or cover texts, is not totally free.
Nevertheless, for practical reasons, we really do want that manual. So,
pretty please (with a
21 matches
Mail list logo
