On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 04:12:51PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> hmm, I don't see it as a bug. the nice thing is that you can unpack
> old deb's on other places and just use them.
Not with the path resolution policy I was describing. It starts
out with an absolute path name rooted at /usr and c
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:15:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok, this is pretty much an unsupported configuration in Debian. Debian
> policy assumes, for instance, that any symlinks within a single top-level
> directory can be made relative symlinks: e.g., /usr/include/X11 ->
> /usr/X11R6/in
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:10:32PM +0100, Christian E. Boehme wrote:
> > You (as in distributor) can solve that problem with using
> > ``--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.0'' during configuration
> > as was done with g++-3.4 or tell the GCC people to change their mi
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:10:32PM +0100, Christian E. Boehme wrote:
> The actual problem, however, lies in the path resolution algorithm for
> standard headers. For whatever reason, the frontend
> (/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/4.0.3/cc1plus) looks for headers under
> /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:15:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Please don't drop the BTS from the recipient list when replying.
Your Return-Path contains only <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which I assume
mutt prefers over the From header ...
> So, as I said, this is completely unreproducible here. You
Please don't drop the BTS from the recipient list when replying.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:27:46AM +0100, Christian E. Boehme wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Then you're obviously doing something wrong, but you haven't actually told
> > us what you're
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Then you're obviously doing something wrong, but you haven't actually told
> us what you're doing, which makes it difficult to help you debug it.
Well, as indicated earlier, I checked the binaries of the g++ driver
versions for pos
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:23:40PM +0100, Christian E. Boehme wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:36:05PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Huh? Are you really suggesting that the standard C++ compiler has been
> > unable to find any of its own header files for over a week in unstable, and
> > no
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:36:05PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> severity 358076 normal
> tags 358076 unreproducible
> thanks
???
> Huh? Are you really suggesting that the standard C++ compiler has been
> unable to find any of its own header files for over a week in unstable, and
> no one noti
severity 358076 normal
tags 358076 unreproducible
thanks
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 04:29:14AM +0100, Christian E. Boehme wrote:
> g++ (or cpp, for that matter) is not able to find the standard C++
> headers and terminates with (example: typeinfo) ``error: typeinfo:
> No such file or directory'' alt
Package: g++-4.0
Version: 4.0.3-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
g++ (or cpp, for that matter) is not able to find the standard C++
headers and terminates with (example: typeinfo) ``error: typeinfo:
No such file or directory'' although /usr/include/c++/4.0.3/typeinfo
clea
11 matches
Mail list logo
