On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> Hi,
> I'll have a look at this tonight. If Matthias solution works we'll use
> thatone for etch, and the gcc-src solution for unstable. Should I do
> anything special to make the release go into etch?
Just close the bug in the changelog
Hi,
I'll have a look at this tonight. If Matthias solution works we'll use
thatone for etch, and the gcc-src solution for unstable. Should I do
anything special to make the release go into etch?
On 3/19/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Håkan,
Can you give an ETA for fixing this
Hi Håkan,
Can you give an ETA for fixing this bug? Per the posted release schedule,
if a maintainer fix isn't uploaded in the next week I'll have to either NMU
the package or remove it (and reverse-deps) from etch (probably NMU, now
that Matthias has provided enough information that it should be
> > see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
> > INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
>
> I've tried to provide a patch that fixes this. I took the list of files
> from the gcc-4.1 package and wrote new Makefile snippet to "clean" the
> included tarballs. The patch is
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:10:32AM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> >Nevertheless it's a significant rearchitecting of the package, so I'm not
> >sure we'd want to see such a change made at this point of the release
> >cycle.
> >OTOH, I guess you'll know better than anyone if the resulting package
> >w
On 3/13/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Hakan Ardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
> >> build-d
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Hakan Ardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
> >> build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gc
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Hakan Ardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
> build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
> sourcecode.
For sure this would be better. (I just didn't dare try
"Hakan Ardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
> build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
> sourcecode.
For sure this would be better. (I just didn't dare try this.) I don't
know about the differences between the
Hi,
thanx for the patch. A better solution however would be to
build-depend on gcc-4.1-source in order not to duplicate the gcc
sourcecode.
On 3/13/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: gcc-avr
> Version: 1:4.1.0-1
> Severity: serious
>
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: gcc-avr
> Version: 1:4.1.0-1
> Severity: serious
>
> see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
> INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
I've tried to provide a patch that fixes this. I took the list of files
from the g
Package: gcc-avr
Version: 1:4.1.0-1
Severity: serious
see debian/rules.unpack in the gcc-4.1 source for a list, plus the
INSTALL directory needs to be removed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
