Matthias Klose wrote:
Richard B. Kreckel writes:
Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play
with that compiler a bit before making it the default.
if you didn't play with it in the past five months, why would you
"play" with it now?
I didn't play wit
Richard B. Kreckel writes:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> >Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as
> >important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in
> >unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious.
> >
> >
> Jeez, according to my avail
* Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-11 21:15]:
> > Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let
> > people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default.
>
> That's what we're doing.
Note that Ben has done a great job sending patches to the bugs I've
filed.
* Richard B. Kreckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-11 22:09]:
> Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet.
...
> Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play
> with that compiler a bit before making it the default.
What I mentioned were the
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as
important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in
unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious.
Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet.
W
Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> >Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as
> >important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in
> >unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious.
> >
> >
> Jeez, according to my availa
6 matches
Mail list logo
