>So? Does that mean the bug doesn't affect GCC 4.1? In that case, I
>believe Peter is correct that the bug must be resolved before GCC 4.2
>can enter unstable. Do you agree?
That wasn't text i wrote it was text i was quoting.
I was just asking if anyone knew if there was a bug report on the iss
Ludovic Brenta writes:
> Matthias Klose writes:
> > peter green writes:
> >> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
> >> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
> >> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
^^^
Matthias Klose writes:
> peter green writes:
>> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
>> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
>> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
>> That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a re
peter green writes:
> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
> That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a reply "Those symbols are
> for
>Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
>issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
>to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a reply "Those symbols are
for glibc. Why do they have libstd
Julien Danjou writes
> I'd like to begin a NMU campaign to help to fix this bugs.
> Does it seems ok to NMU to delay/7 ?
I wouddn't mind, but please wait until new versions of gcc-4.2 and
gcc-snapshot are in unstable, so that people can easily test.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
At 1176487834 time_t, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> "a few" =~ 400, but yes, they are trivial to fix and patches for
> almost all of them exist. I'll start filing other 4.3 related bugs in
> the coming weeks.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.3;[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
I'd
On 4/15/07, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see any reason to not upgrade them all to important as of now
(and we'll probably have some release goals again, and having "compiles
with gcc-x.y" for all (future) x.y as goal seems like a good idea to me.
Just a note: the new gcc-sn
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070415 15:34]:
> Martin Michlmayr writes:
> > FWIW, I've been keeping track of 4.2 related package bugs:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.2;[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]
>
> Martin Michlmayr writes:
> > "a few" =~ 400, but yes, they ar
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> * Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-13 19:42]:
> > gcc 4.2.0 will be released Real Soon Now (next few months). Changes
> > are not very disruptive, I suppose not very many packages will fail
> > to build. It will probably stabilize within a few months.
we will s
* Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-13 19:42]:
> gcc 4.2.0 will be released Real Soon Now (next few months). Changes
> are not very disruptive, I suppose not very many packages will fail
> to build. It will probably stabilize within a few months.
FWIW, I've been keeping track of 4.2 relat
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We would like to know which major upstream versions of gcc are
> expected to be released in the next 24 months and how much time you
> expect them to need to get stable enough for a Debian stable release.
gcc 4.2.0 will be released Real Soon No
Heya,
The release team is currently working on a schedule for the lenny
release cycle. For that, we want to gather some data from the bigger
software packaging teams in Debian first.
We would like to know which major upstream versions of gcc are
expected to be released in the next 24 months and h
13 matches
Mail list logo
