On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:37:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > no, only the upstream tarball is used from gcc-4.1-source. the
> > > patches are used from the gcj-4.1 source. The patches in
> > > gcc-4.1-source are needed to build cross compilers, based on
> > > gcc-4.1-source.
> > My point
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > > > gcj-4.1
>
> > > I'm wonderi
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> > > gcj-4.1
> > I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> > know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> > release.
> in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gc
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > gcj-4.1
>
> I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate.
> Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will buil
Steve Langasek writes:
> so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> release.
in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gcj-4.1,
ecj-bootstrap-gcj. How many build-dependencies will be broken? Did
Andrew Haley writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> >
> > > - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
> > >currently non-functional, te
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:53:37AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Going back to gcj-4.0 for arm could be an alternative, at least simple
> > > programs did compile to native code and run sucessfully. The testsuite
> > > in 4.0 shows over 100 test failures, in 4.1 over 700. Reverting back
> >
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
> >currently non-functional, testsuite shows failures for all
>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> gcj-4.1
I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate.
Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will build against any version of
gcc-4.1-so
Matthias Klose writes:
>
> - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
>currently non-functional, testsuite shows failures for all
>interpreter test cases.
>#388505: segfaults in gcj-dbtool-4.1, not addressed.
>
> Going back to gcj-4.0 for arm could be a
[didn't see this email reaching the lists, sending it again]
Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
gcj-4.1
java-gcj-compat
gcc-defaults
ecj-bootstrap
gjdoc
The packages don't show regressions compared to the versions currently
in testin
12 matches
Mail list logo
