On 03/06/08 at 14:44 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Hello and thanks for the report. > > By the way, do you have the configure.log file available from the build? > That would help my diagnosis of the problem.
No, sorry. But I could re-run a build, if really necessary. > <rant>I have to say, it is not helpful to tag something "FTBFS on i386" > when that is in fact not the case. It builds just fine in unstable on > i386. And to test your assertion regarding gcc-4.3, I need to dig into > the non-standard build system of my package to discover its C compiler > option, or perhaps install gcc-defaults from experimental. > > A more sensible approach would be to transition gcc and friends first, > then file the bugs. If these bugs are supposed to be "serious" for > lenny, then let's make them so. I've been waiting for months for this > transition to happen on i386 (and amd64), and meanwhile fixing bugs > which come with patches. What's the reason for the delay, cf. the rush > to file "serious" bugs?</rant> I've been waiting too, and most arches have transitioned to gcc-4.3. The easiest way to test that bug would be to try to build petsc on another architecture that already switched to gcc-4.3. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
