Hi,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Guo Yixuan wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> > I would rather drop any package which does use c++11 features without
any
>> > reflection.
>>
>> I now unders
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I would rather drop any package which does use c++11 features without any
> > reflection.
>
> I now understand the problem. Thanks.
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:10:5
Control: forwarded 754199
https://code.google.com/p/rimeime/issues/detail?id=632
Control: tag 754199 + upstream
Hello,
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I would rather drop any package which does use
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 00:08:28 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > But this seems toi be a bug porter amd GCC maintainer has to address.
> > If they can not, we should drop armel from Debian.
> I would rather drop any package which does
Hi
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I would rather drop any package which does use c++11 features without any
> reflection.
I now understand the problem. Thanks.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:10:52PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> No, just because some random c++1
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 00:08:28 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But this seems toi be a bug porter amd GCC maintainer has to address.
> If they can not, we should drop armel from Debian.
I would rather drop any package which does use c++11 features without any
reflection. The c++11 status in GCC (and
6 matches
Mail list logo