Bug#946285: libgcc-s1: probably needs Breaks: libgcc1 (<< 1:10)

2020-04-30 Thread Matthias Klose
On 12/17/19 12:48 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06.12.19 20:32, Simon McVittie wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 at 17:49:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 06.12.19 17:36, Simon McVittie wrote: I notice gcc-10 has switched from packaging libgcc_s.so.1 as "libgcc1" to the

Bug#946285: libgcc-s1: probably needs Breaks: libgcc1 (<< 1:10)

2019-12-17 Thread Matthias Klose
On 06.12.19 20:32, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 at 17:49:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 06.12.19 17:36, Simon McVittie wrote: >>> I notice gcc-10 has switched from packaging libgcc_s.so.1 as >>> "libgcc1" to the Policy-recommended name libgcc-s1. >> >> it's not an old

Bug#946285: libgcc-s1: probably needs Breaks: libgcc1 (<< 1:10)

2019-12-06 Thread Simon McVittie
On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 at 17:49:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06.12.19 17:36, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I notice gcc-10 has switched from packaging libgcc_s.so.1 as > > "libgcc1" to the Policy-recommended name libgcc-s1. > > it's not an old version, it's the same version. Is this still an

Bug#946285: libgcc-s1: probably needs Breaks: libgcc1 (<< 1:10)

2019-12-06 Thread Matthias Klose
On 06.12.19 17:36, Simon McVittie wrote: > Package: libgcc-s1 > Version: 10-20191205-1 > Severity: important > > I notice gcc-10 has switched from packaging libgcc_s.so.1 as > "libgcc1" to the Policy-recommended name libgcc-s1. Because libgcc-s1 > contains /usr/lib/MULTIARCH/libgcc_s.so.1 and

Bug#946285: libgcc-s1: probably needs Breaks: libgcc1 (<< 1:10)

2019-12-06 Thread Simon McVittie
Package: libgcc-s1 Version: 10-20191205-1 Severity: important I notice gcc-10 has switched from packaging libgcc_s.so.1 as "libgcc1" to the Policy-recommended name libgcc-s1. Because libgcc-s1 contains /usr/lib/MULTIARCH/libgcc_s.so.1 and libgcc1 contains /lib/MULTIARCH/libgcc_s.so.1, the new