Dear Lucas and everybody,
the recent archive rebuild uncovered a large number of GCC 4.6 build failures
(that could been already forseen from Launchpad). In the long run, I find very
impressive the contribution from the major Linux distribution to their upstreams
for keeping them up to date with
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:32, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
However, given my experience of repetitive patching cycles with earlier GCC
updates, it would be pointless to spend a lot of energy updating our packages
now if it is only to realise in few weeks that the next GCC update
Sandro Tosi wrote:
Who do you expect to send such communication? the gcc maintainer? good
luck with that.
Do we really need that type of public bashing on -devel ? Your gripes with
Matthias are notorious enough to avoid the need to repeat them all over the
place, IHMO.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 05/03/2011 12:09 PM, Didier Raboud wrote:
Sandro Tosi wrote:
Who do you expect to send such communication? the gcc maintainer? good
luck with that.
Do we really need that type of public bashing on -devel ? Your gripes with
Matthias are notorious enough to avoid the need to repeat them
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Note that the alternatives are:
- tag it 'sid'. But then, I would need to determine the root cause of
each FTBFS, and when the status of the FTBFS changes in testing.
- do not tag it. But then, it would be seen as affecting stable.
What I would need is a way to
On 05/03/2011 11:32 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
the recent archive rebuild uncovered a large number of GCC 4.6 build failures
(that could been already forseen from Launchpad). In the long run, I find very
impressive the contribution from the major Linux distribution to their upstreams
for keeping
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 07:21:28AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
(Ccing -devel@, since I have been asked about that by others)
On 03/05/11 at 01:16 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
tag 624997 - wheezy
thanks
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:39:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source:
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 05:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
GCC usually has a twelve months release cycle, so you'll see the
next set of missing include headers in spring 2012, and in Debian,
if unstable isn't frozen by this time.
Thanks for the information.
I just got a bug from you
Hi,
(not a gcc maintainer)
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (04/05/2011):
I just got a bug from you explaining some changes (= more FTBFS)
about 4.6.1. Will there be similar 4.6.x changes in the future ?
my reading of it is that to prevent too many FTBFSes while introducing
4.6 in Debian,
On 05/04/2011 12:24 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
(not a gcc maintainer)
Charles Plessyple...@debian.org (04/05/2011):
I just got a bug from you explaining some changes (= more FTBFS)
about 4.6.1. Will there be similar 4.6.x changes in the future ?
my reading of it is that to prevent too
(Ccing -devel@, since I have been asked about that by others)
On 03/05/11 at 01:16 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
tag 624997 - wheezy
thanks
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:39:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: writerperfect
Version: 0.8.0-3
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
No.
11 matches
Mail list logo
