debian-toolchain  

Messages by Date

• 2025/12/04 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Rob Landley
• 2025/11/29 Intention to drop multilib support from architecture cross bootstrap (rebootstrap) Helmut Grohne
• 2025/11/12 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Lucas Nussbaum
• 2025/11/12 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Adrian Bunk
• 2025/11/06 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Holger Levsen
• 2025/11/05 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Lucas Nussbaum
• 2025/11/05 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (OpenBSD) Philipp Kern
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Falco Girgis
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (OpenBSD) John David Anglin
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Christopher Huhn
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? Riccardo Mottola
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Riccardo Mottola
• 2025/11/04 Re: Planned obsolescence ? Jaromír Cápík
• 2025/11/03 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) David Starner
• 2025/11/03 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Jan-Daniel Kaplanski
• 2025/11/03 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) David Starner
• 2025/11/02 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (*BSD, Rust) Jan-Daniel Kaplanski
• 2025/11/02 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (OpenBSD) Paul Tagliamonte
• 2025/11/02 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (OpenBSD) jbranso
• 2025/10/31 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Mateusz Jończyk
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Arnd Bergmann
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Adrian Bunk
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Nikos Tsipinakis
• 2025/10/30 Re: Planned obsolescence ? Riccardo Mottola
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Arnd Bergmann
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Peter Green
• 2025/10/30 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Arnd Bergmann
• 2025/10/29 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Peter Green
• 2025/10/29 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Arnd Bergmann
• 2025/10/29 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Adrian Bunk
• 2025/10/28 Re: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky John Klos
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Diederik de Haas
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Diederik de Haas
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Marc Haber
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Marc Haber
• 2025/10/28 AW: Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Jan-Daniel Kaplanski
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
• 2025/10/28 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Marc Haber
• 2025/10/28 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Marc Haber
• 2025/10/28 Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Marc Haber
• 2025/10/28 Re: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Hermann . Lauer
• 2025/10/28 Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky) Romain Dolbeau
• 2025/10/28 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Kurt Roeckx
• 2025/10/28 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Sicelo
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky John Klos
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Bastian Blank
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Milan Kupcevic
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Arnd Bergmann
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Rob Landley
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Rob Landley
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Colin Watson
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Martin
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Adrian Bunk
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky kiruthikaanbusuresh
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Marcin Juszkiewicz
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Aurelien Jarno
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Adrian Bunk
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Gerardo Ballabio
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Geert Uytterhoeven
• 2025/10/27 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Bastian Blank
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Tony Rodriguez
• 2025/10/26 Actual case of harm due to linux-libc-dev vs c-t-b difference: input-utils Helmut Grohne
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Simon Richter
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Tony Rodriguez
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Jan-Daniel Kaplanski
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Marco d'Itri
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky Tony Rodriguez
• 2025/10/26 Re: Architecture baseline for Forky John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
• 2025/10/26 Architecture baseline for Forky Bastian Blank
• 2025/09/21 SBOM generation for Debian packages is difficult Vyom Yadav
• 2025/06/29 cross-gcc is marked for autoremoval from testing Debian testing autoremoval watch
• 2025/06/10 [Help] Specific options to cross-compile gcc and g++ Jose Gomez
• 2025/06/09 cross-gcc is marked for autoremoval from testing Debian testing autoremoval watch
• 2025/06/07 Bug#1107126: is cross-gcc-dev still useful or can it be removed? Dima Kogan
• 2025/06/01 Bug#1107126: is cross-gcc-dev still useful or can it be removed? Helmut Grohne
• 2025/04/15 Re: Clarification Request Regarding CVE-2025-1176 Affecting binutils Salvatore Bonaccorso
• 2025/04/15 Clarification Request Regarding CVE-2025-1176 Affecting binutils Sunil Kumar Dora
• 2024/02/19 Re: Bug#1063684: cross-gcc-dev: needs update for gcc-13 Dima Kogan
• 2024/02/19 Processing of cross-gcc_249_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2024/02/19 cross-gcc_249_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2024/02/19 Bug#1063684: marked as done (cross-gcc-dev: needs update for gcc-13) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2024/02/10 Bug#1063684: cross-gcc-dev: needs update for gcc-13 Samuel Thibault
• 2023/03/29 Bug#973414: rustc: produces non-baseline opcodes for compiler_builtins::int::udiv::__udivmoddi4 on i386 James Addison
• 2023/01/29 cross-gcc_248_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2023/01/29 Bug#1029958: marked as done (cross-gcc-dev: gcc-13: update hunk context) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2023/01/29 Processing of cross-gcc_248_source.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2023/01/29 Bug#1029958: cross-gcc-dev: gcc-13: update hunk context Helmut Grohne
• 2023/01/26 cross-gcc_247_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2023/01/26 Processing of cross-gcc_247_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2023/01/25 Bug#1028094: marked as done (support gcc-13) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2023/01/06 Bug#1028094: support gcc-13 Helmut Grohne
• 2022/05/25 cross-gcc is marked for autoremoval from testing Debian testing autoremoval watch
• 2021/11/26 Bug#1000461: add support for gcc-12 Dima Kogan
• 2021/11/26 cross-gcc_246_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2021/11/26 Bug#1000461: marked as done (add support for gcc-12) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2021/11/26 Processing of cross-gcc_246_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2021/11/25 Bug#1000461: add support for gcc-12 Dima Kogan
• 2021/11/23 Bug#1000461: add support for gcc-12 Helmut Grohne
• 2021/10/13 Bug#996432: ITS: newlib John Scott
• 2021/06/08 Re: NMU to provide a newlib-source package Simon Richter
• 2021/06/08 NMU to provide a newlib-source package John Scott
• 2021/04/14 Dealing with libcc1 in Multi-Arch: foreign cross-compiler John Scott
• 2021/01/31 Re: Fwd: Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package Nicolas Boulenguez
• 2021/01/29 Re: Fwd: Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package Matthias Klose
• 2021/01/28 Re: Fwd: Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package John Scott
• 2021/01/28 Re: Fwd: Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package Nicolas Boulenguez
• 2021/01/23 Re: Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package Wookey
• 2021/01/23 Making a bare-metal cross Binutils package John Scott
• 2021/01/03 Processed: closing 977944 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2020/12/28 The need to retool [binutils|gcc]-source during package builds John Scott
• 2020/12/23 cross-gcc_245_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2020/12/23 Processing of cross-gcc_245_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2020/12/22 Bug#977944: add support for gcc-11 Helmut Grohne
• 2020/04/15 Bug#956855: consider reducing toolchain bootstrap stages Helmut Grohne
• 2020/03/11 Saludos Mariana Quintal
• 2020/02/17 cross-gcc_243_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2020/02/17 Bug#951470: marked as done (cross-ma-install-location.diff no longer applies to gcc-10) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2020/02/17 Processing of cross-gcc_243_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2020/02/16 Bug#951470: cross-ma-install-location.diff no longer applies to gcc-10 Helmut Grohne
• 2020/02/16 Re: Bug#950490: transition: gnat-9, Ada component of GCC-9 Ludovic Brenta
• 2019/12/30 cross-gcc_242_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/12/30 Processing of cross-gcc_242_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/12/30 Bug#927230: marked as done (cross-gcc-dev: gcc-9 patch application failure) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/12/30 Bug#927230: cross-gcc-dev: gcc-9 patch application failure Dima Kogan
• 2019/12/28 Processed: Re: Bug#927230: closing 927230 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/12/28 Bug#927230: closing 927230 Helmut Grohne
• 2019/12/28 Processed: unarchiving 927230 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/12/23 Bug#947235: port patches to gcc-10 Dima Kogan
• 2019/12/23 Processed: closing 947235 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/12/23 cross-gcc_241_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/12/23 Processing of cross-gcc_241_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/12/23 Bug#947235: port patches to gcc-10 Helmut Grohne
• 2019/11/29 cross-gcc_238_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/11/29 Processing of cross-gcc_238_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/11/17 cross-gcc_235_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/11/17 Processing of cross-gcc_235_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/11/17 Bug#942874: marked as done (cross-gcc: Please make it source-only when making new uploads) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/11/17 Processed: closing 927230 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/10/30 Re: state of mipsen cross toolchains Matthias Klose
• 2019/10/28 Re: state of mipsen cross toolchains YunQiang Su
• 2019/10/28 Re: state of mipsen cross toolchains Helmut Grohne
• 2019/10/28 Re: state of mipsen cross toolchains Matthias Klose
• 2019/10/27 state of mipsen cross toolchains Helmut Grohne
• 2019/10/22 Bug#942874: cross-gcc: Please make it source-only when making new uploads Boyuan Yang
• 2019/10/09 cross-gcc_234_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/10/09 Processing of cross-gcc_234_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/09/04 Your Debian package(s) will not migrate to testing Julian Gilbey
• 2019/09/01 cross-gcc_232_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/09/01 Bug#928035: marked as done (gcc-9 patches no longer applies) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/09/01 Bug#936092: marked as done (gcc-9 patches apply even less) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/09/01 Processing of cross-gcc_232_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/08/29 Bug#936092: gcc-9 patches apply even less Helmut Grohne
• 2019/08/29 Processed: gcc-9 patches apply even less Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/07/22 Bug#932762: fakeroot file somefile: Bad system call Helmut Grohne
• 2019/07/14 cross-gcc_231_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/07/14 Processing of cross-gcc_231_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/04/26 Bug#928035: gcc-9 patches no longer applies Helmut Grohne
• 2019/04/17 cross-gcc is marked for autoremoval from testing Debian testing autoremoval watch
• 2019/04/16 Bug#927230: cross-gcc-dev: gcc-9 patch application failure Helmut Grohne
• 2019/04/16 Processed: cross-gcc-dev: gcc-9 patch application failure Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/04/15 cross-gcc_230_source.changes REJECTED Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/04/15 Processed: fix versions for 925950 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/04/14 Processed: unblock: cross-gcc/230 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/04/12 cross-gcc_230_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/04/12 cross-gcc_229_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/04/05 cross-gcc is marked for autoremoval from testing Debian testing autoremoval watch
• 2019/04/05 Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Dima Kogan
• 2019/04/05 Processing of cross-gcc_230_source.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/04/05 Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Tobias Frost
• 2019/04/05 Processed: Re: Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/04/03 Geldsorgen? test
• 2019/03/30 Processed: closing 878356 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/03/29 Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Helmut Grohne
• 2019/03/29 Processed: Re: Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/03/29 Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Dima Kogan
• 2019/03/28 Bug#925950: patches no longer apply for gcc-8 and gcc-9 Helmut Grohne
• 2019/03/27 Processing of cross-gcc_230_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/03/09 Processing of cross-gcc_229_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/02/16 cross-gcc_226_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/02/16 Processing of cross-gcc_226_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/02/06 cross-gcc_223_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/02/06 Processing of cross-gcc_223_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/01/29 cross-gcc_220_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/01/28 Processing of cross-gcc_220_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/01/09 Bug#918397: marked as done (cross-gcc-dev should support gcc-9) Debian Bug Tracking System
• 2019/01/09 Bug#918397: cross-gcc-dev should support gcc-9 Dima Kogan
• 2019/01/09 cross-gcc_218_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/01/09 Processing of cross-gcc_218_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2019/01/05 Bug#918397: cross-gcc-dev should support gcc-9 Helmut Grohne
• 2018/12/18 cross-gcc_217_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/12/18 Processing of cross-gcc_217_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/12/08 cross-gcc_216_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/12/08 Processing of cross-gcc_216_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/11/04 cross-gcc_213_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/11/04 Processing of cross-gcc_213_amd64.changes Debian FTP Masters
• 2018/10/20 cross-gcc_210_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Debian FTP Masters

• Earlier messages