Hi, On 12/02/11 00:58, Ron wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 01:05:29PM +0100, Carlos Rivera wrote: > > I have tried with Ubuntu Maverick which has the same upstream tarball > > (mingw32_4.2.1.dfsg.orig.tar.gz) but a different patch > > (mingw32_4.2.1.dfsg-2ubuntu1.diff.gz). > > The compiler works there so I took their patch and diffed it with the > > ubuntu squeeze patch. > > Which part of "this doesn't actually fix the problem" was unclear in the > initial discussion of this report?
I did not find "this doesn't actually fix the problem" or similar anywhere in the report. However the headers of the bug report say: mingw32: cannot find -lgcc_s Fixed in version mingw32/4.2.1.dfsg-1.2 So I figured that if the bug is fixed then one should not get the cannot find -lgcc_s error when compiling. But then it might just be my ingnorance of Debian procedures. > All that you (and apparently ubuntu) have done here is to turn an immediate > and obvious compile time failure, into a deferred, and probably quite obscure > and difficult to trace, runtime failure. > > > And installed the resulting .deb, it worked. > > If by 'worked' you mean it compiled "an empty exception.cc file", per your > earlier report, then sure. But you could have saved yourself some time and > work and just given it an empty libgcc_s to link to as well, for much the > same result. > > You haven't actually done anything to *implement* the missing parts of the > exception handling that are actually needed for this to actually work, with > actual exceptions, in all actually legal code. > > So indeed, I quite agree that this has still not been fixed. But I don't > agree that hiding this from users is an appropriate response; that's just > going to get _their_ users upset with them, when their applications fail > out of no real fault of their own. Because of a problem we knew about. > That's not how Debian is supposed to work. > > Does that make sense? Of course it does. Sorry for the noise.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
