On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:48:53PM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
I guess it does. But I thought reopen was deprecated since the versioning
stuff was added to the BTS. However, the notfixed command issued earlier
didn't completely remove the done status from the bug... (And I thought
I'd
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned, nondeprecated way
to
revert the effects of a versioned message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reopen (I think that also clears the fixed list, don't tried it though,
so you
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Daniel Schepler wrote:
So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned,
nondeprecated way to revert the effects of a versioned message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are three reasonable ways, depending on the effect you want to
have:
1) found foobug fooversion;
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
versions to be removed ('cause they're equal to the found version),
the bug is reopened as well.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
versions to be removed ('cause they're equal to
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:06, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
versions to be removed ('cause they're
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
However, I'm not completely sure if that explanation actually matches what
I was seeing in practice and have not tried only using 'found' recently
(I've been using both reopen and found, just to be sure...).
Heh. The explanation is the way it's
* Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-28 08:40]:
Does this imply that all FORTRAN-using packages will need to move from
g77-3.4 to gfortran-4.2 in the near future? To my knowledge there has
been no mass rebuild of FORTRAN packages with gfortran yet to see how
smoothly this will work
* Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-28 17:09]:
So with your permission, I'd like to close those three bugs.
At least jigdo builds fine here as well, so please feel free to close
them.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
BTW: anybody more versed in the bts system than I am, how can I get #359634
marked as not actually being fixed?
Does a simple reopen not work?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 29 June 2007 08:21:18 am Philippe Cloutier wrote:
BTW: anybody more versed in the bts system than I am, how can I get
#359634 marked as not actually being fixed?
Does a simple reopen not work?
I guess it does. But I thought reopen was deprecated since the versioning
stuff was
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
GCC 4.2 was released on May 13 and has been in unstable since roughly
that time. The default version of gfortran was recently switched to
4.2 and the Debian GCC maintainers would like to move to 4.2 as the
default compiler in unstable for all architectures and for all
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:47:55PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
GCC 4.2 was released on May 13 and has been in unstable since roughly
that time. The default version of gfortran was recently switched to
4.2 and the Debian GCC maintainers would like to move to 4.2 as the
default compiler in
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-28 16:48]:
default compiler in unstable for all architectures and for all
languages with the exception of Java (which will follow later).
This message describes the plan to make this transition possible.
Could you say something about the
I've been unable to reproduce any of the One Definition Rule bugs you filed.
Jigdo builds fine; apt builds successfully apart from #428623 (and #359634 on
my local setup); and gnome-vfsmm2.6 is fine until it hits #422813. It looks
like something was either fixed or reverted. I also tried
15 matches
Mail list logo
