On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 13:23:41 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
So, given that the incompatibility between GMP 4 and 5 is removing a
couple of public functions, you believe it is safe to have the shared
libs coexist in the archive?
It looks that way.
That's fine. Can you help me work out
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:22:15PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 13:23:41 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
1. Upload gmp4, as described above.
In progress, will upload shortly.
2. Upload gmp introducing libgmp-dev as the real package, providing
virtual packages
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
Dear GMP Developers,
Is the following characterization of the changes between
4.3.2 and 5.0.1 accurate?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell, the
incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 20:30:00 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:07:44 +0100, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
Dear GMP Developers,
Is the following characterization of the changes between
4.3.2 and 5.0.1 accurate?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
Hi Julien,
First, thanks for looking into the GMP issue.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell, the
incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and
mpn_neg_n, and the rest of the functions should
On 17.03.2011 19:42, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:39:23 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
So this is going pretty badly. gmp has a *lot* of reverse dependencies.
[ ... ]
I'm not sure what to do at this point.
I'm working my way
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
Well I tried to mention some ways this was suboptimal in my previous
mail. Probably too late to do anything about it right now though, other
than decide if we want to revert.
OK, I might see another way out. As far as I can
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at
http://release.debian.org/transitions/gmp5.html uploading
new versions with the build-dep changed.
Dear GMP Developers,
Is the following characterization of the changes between
4.3.2 and 5.0.1 accurate?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell, the
incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and
mpn_neg_n, and the rest
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:39:23 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
So this is going pretty badly. gmp has a *lot* of reverse dependencies.
[ ... ]
I'm not sure what to do at this point.
I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at
On 18.03.2011 03:17, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
So this is going pretty badly. gmp has a *lot* of reverse dependencies.
[ ... ]
I'm not sure what to do at this point.
I'm working my way through the dependent
Hi,
I checked with the GMP experts [1] and found no reason to expect
insurmountable problems so I'm preparing the GMP upload now.
[1] http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2011-February/004526.html
Cheers,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be
Hi Adam,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the
Dear Matthias,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your
concerns in detail so that we could address them.
what is cryptic about the question?
Thanks for
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Matthias asks:
did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version
on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show
regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while
re-building mpfr and mpclib with the
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns?
Have any concerns been raised on the GCC
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required
for reverse-dependencies,
On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
Matthias also responded requesting:
I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 22:15 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
Matthias also responded requesting:
I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Looking at the package names of the unstable and experimental versions,
it looks like the main change is libgmp3c2 to libgmp3? (There is also
lib{32,64}gmp3 -
On 06.02.2011 19:39, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
Looking at the package names of the
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd appreciate some guidance
from the gcc team as well,
30 matches
Mail list logo
