Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:15:12PM +1000, Kevin Murray wrote:
>
> Andreas/Michael may remember differently, but from memory we will have:
>
> - SeqAn 1.x in src:seqan -> seqan-dev (only, no apps)
> - SeqAn 2.x in src:seqan2 -> libseqan2-dev and seqan-apps (and one day -doc)
Ahhh,
Hi Sascha,
On 13:40 22/07, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [...]
> > #811841 seqan: FTBFS with GCC 6: no match for
> >
> > - refers to v1.4, AFAIK version 2.0 is already in the archive, so this
> > one should probably me closed.
>
> I don't think it is [1]. Anyway, AFAICS SeqAn 2.0 is
Hi all,
[...]
> #811841 seqan: FTBFS with GCC 6: no match for
>
> - refers to v1.4, AFAIK version 2.0 is already in the archive, so this
> one should probably me closed.
I don't think it is [1]. Anyway, AFAICS SeqAn 2.0 is intended to go into
a separate package seqan2 instead? Some of the
Hi Gert,
thanks for your gcc-6 fixing effort and the status update.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 01:59:57PM +0200, Gert Wollny wrote:
> The current list of open gcc-6 bugs is this [1], I had a look at most
> of them already.
I'd say there is a "new set" of gcc 6 errors:
#831100 [S| | ]
Hello all,
Am Freitag, den 22.07.2016, 13:29 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi folks,
>
> But we need to do more specifically the gcc-6 bugs are quite a
> blocker. I'd like to re-generate metapackages soon. It would be not
> nice if these would not miss the gcc-6 affected losses we currently
Hi folks,
Gert and Sascha did a lot of bug fixing recently. But we need to do
more specifically the gcc-6 bugs are quite a blocker. I'd like to
re-generate metapackages soon. It would be not nice if these would not
miss the gcc-6 affected losses we currently have (or will have soon).
So
6 matches
Mail list logo