Hi Håkan,
Can you give an ETA for fixing this bug? Per the posted release schedule,
if a maintainer fix isn't uploaded in the next week I'll have to either NMU
the package or remove it (and reverse-deps) from etch (probably NMU, now
that Matthias has provided enough information that it should be
Hi,
I'll have a look at this tonight. If Matthias solution works we'll use
thatone for etch, and the gcc-src solution for unstable. Should I do
anything special to make the release go into etch?
On 3/19/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Håkan,
Can you give an ETA for fixing this
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Hi,
I'll have a look at this tonight. If Matthias solution works we'll use
thatone for etch, and the gcc-src solution for unstable. Should I do
anything special to make the release go into etch?
Just close the bug in the changelog.
see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
I've tried to provide a patch that fixes this. I took the list of files
from the gcc-4.1 package and wrote new Makefile snippet to clean the
included tarballs. The patch is
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:10:32AM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Nevertheless it's a significant rearchitecting of the package, so I'm not
sure we'd want to see such a change made at this point of the release
cycle.
OTOH, I guess you'll know better than anyone if the resulting package
works,
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: gcc-avr
Version: 1:4.1.0-1
Severity: serious
see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
I've tried to provide a patch that fixes this. I took the list of files
from the gcc-4.1
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
sourcecode.
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: gcc-avr
Version: 1:4.1.0-1
Severity: serious
see
Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
sourcecode.
For sure this would be better. (I just didn't dare try this.) I don't
know about the differences between the
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
sourcecode.
For sure this would be better. (I just didn't dare try this.) I
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
sourcecode.
On 3/13/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on
Package: gcc-avr
Version: 1:4.1.0-1
Severity: serious
see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
