notfound 317839 2.7.0-6 notfound 317839 2.7.0-6sarge1 notfound 317839 2.6.6.1-5.2 notfound 317839 2.7.0-7.1 found 317839 2.7.0-7 thanks
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > The last item may not be terribly relevant; I'm not sure it is reasonable > to expect things to work with GCC 4.0 on oldstable, really. However, > the versions for both stable and proposed-stable exhibit the behavior > documented in this bug, as best I can tell, if you use GCC 4.0 on Sarge - > which is normally a somewhat more reasonable proposition, if working with > things where the incompatible binary transition isn't an issue. Using gcc 4.0 on sarge is a reasonable proposition, but using the new gcc-defaults package on sarge is *not*; it seems an estimated 10% of the current unstable archive still doesn't build from source using gcc 4.0, and the percentage will be higher in sarge. IMHO, it's pretty pointless to try to use the BTS to track which packages in stable fail to build with gcc-4.0, particularly as this will make it impossible to distinguish between grave bugs in sarge that still need attention, and grave bugs that aren't grave at all. > At the very least, if it's not considered suitable for a stable update > please consider lowering the priority and tagging it wontfix for the > relevant versions. Since there's no way to split the severity of a bug across versions, this would require cloning a new bug at lower severity. That seems a little silly just for a non-RC wontfix bug, but the maintainer's MMV. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
