That would be great, I don't have access to one.
Carlo
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 00:59]:
Thanks Martin, this has been corrected in the newest version (0.7.2) of
fityk. I overlooked this bug report before uploading the new pack
* Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 08:09]:
> Indeed, what I did was to look at the patch Martin supplied and
> checked the 0.7.2 source. The developer had removed the offending
> syntax and that is what I based my statement on. There may, of
> course, be other places where g++4.1 choke
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2006, 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
* Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 00:59]:
> Thanks Martin, this has been corrected in the newest version (0.7.2) of
> fityk. I overlooked this bug report before uploading the new package. I
> will close the bug once the package hits etch. It looks like it has built
> successfullly
Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2006, 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.
>>
On Wed, 11 Mar 2006, 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.
Thanks Martin, this has been corrected in the newest
6 matches
Mail list logo
