Bug#413370: libssp32, libssp64 removed in experimental
Package: glibc Version: 2.5 Severity: important libssp32, libssp64 are not built anymore by gcc in experimental, glibc b-d on these. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#413370: libssp32, libssp64 removed in experimental
Matthias Klose a écrit : Package: glibc Version: 2.5 Severity: important libssp32, libssp64 are not built anymore by gcc in experimental, glibc b-d on these. This means we will have to build-depends on gcc-4.1 from experimental. This won't be possible until it is built and uploaded for all architectures that have bi-arch support. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#413370: libssp32, libssp64 removed in experimental
Aurelien Jarno writes: Matthias Klose a écrit : Package: glibc Version: 2.5 Severity: important libssp32, libssp64 are not built anymore by gcc in experimental, glibc b-d on these. This means we will have to build-depends on gcc-4.1 from experimental. or maybe provide libssp32, libssp64 in the libc6-xxx packages? This won't be possible until it is built and uploaded for all architectures that have bi-arch support. please go ahead and upload the remaing two (sparc and s390) Matthias
Processing of glibc_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.changes
glibc_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: glibc_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6.dsc glibc_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6.diff.gz glibc-doc_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_all.deb locales_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_all.deb libc6_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-prof_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-pic_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-sparc64_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-sparcv9_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-sparcv9b_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-dev-sparc64_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb nscd_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-dbg_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.deb libc6-udeb_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.udeb libnss-dns-udeb_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.udeb libnss-files-udeb_2.3.2.ds1-22sarge6_sparc.udeb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tzdata 2007b-1 MIGRATED to testing
FYI: The status of the tzdata source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 2006p-1 Current version: 2007b-1 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
glibc 2.3.6.ds1-13 MIGRATED to testing
FYI: The status of the glibc source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 2.3.6.ds1-11 Current version: 2.3.6.ds1-13 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351629: Still in 2.3.6.ds1-10 with sarge binutils
Hi, I don't know if I can reopen this as a normal user, but I can still reproduce this with libc6-dev from etch and binutils from sarge, that's an unsupported mix. there is a gcc-3.3 in etch, binutils in etch, please install this combination. I was referring to the problem described by the orignal reporter, i.e., which gcc-3.3 doesn't matter, but post-sarge binutils doesn't work: Error also goes away if binutils is upgraded from sarge version to version currently in unstable. But this upgrade in turn causes problems with usage of g++ 3.3, described at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625. This problem happens on Debian if binutils are post-sarge, with any version of g++-3.3 packages. So at least, dependency on recent binutils should be added. But it would be much better if compatibility with sarge binutils will be preserved in libc6-dev until a workable combination of g++-3.3 and post-sarge binutils will be found. Unfortunately, we do have to use g++-3.3 ABI here, and I'm sure we are not alone with that. I guess this is really a bug in binutils, but it still means this package is apparently incompatible with g++-3.3 for now, due to a few mysterious name changes in libc_nonshared.a. That leaves no suitable package in etch, hence my two questions above. Thanks, Michael P.S. Should a copy of this bug be sent to the binutils package? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
