Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I found one serious bug in 4.1.1 though (#370308) which needs to be
> > fixed before 4.1 can be the default (since it produces a bogus error
> > on some Perl headers which get included by many packages).
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-04 21:01]:
> > As we are below the 20 packages count if bug #366820 is correct (and
> > Martin just confirmed the number), it is ok to do the switch now.
> > Martin, can you please also mark these bugs as serious now (as
> > th
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I found one serious bug in 4.1.1 though (#370308) which needs to be
> fixed before 4.1 can be the default (since it produces a bogus error
> on some Perl headers which get included by many packages). Matthias
> is aware of this an
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-04 21:01]:
> As we are below the 20 packages count if bug #366820 is correct (and
> Martin just confirmed the number), it is ok to do the switch now.
> Martin, can you please also mark these bugs as serious now (as
> they're FTBFS then)?
Yes, we have be
Hi,
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 23:10]:
> we think the switch to gcc 4.1
> as default should only be made if not more than 20 packages become RC
> buggy by it. Also, the switch should happen latest 1.5 months prior to
> freeze, that is Jun 15th.
As we are below the 20 packages co
Em Qui, 2006-05-11 às 15:05 -0300, Gustavo Franco escreveu:
> by mail, really ? Well, that's weird. Why we've usertags[0] too ?
>
> [0] = http://wiki.debian.org/bugs.debian.org/usertags
Usertags are not simply for "blocking" relations tagging. Usertags are
supposed to be a way for users to do wh
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I didn't hit this problem myself yet, but it has been mentioned on
sparclinux list that 4.1 currently miscompiles the sparc kernel.
Do you know if this still happens, and if so, whether someone has
tracked it down?
I only became aware of it a coup
Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> hi,
>
>> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
>> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
>
> what about the t
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:56:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:34:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:59:27AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL
> > > PRO
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:34:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:59:27AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas
* Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 15:05]:
> >Well, I've no idea what you mean by "manage". You can add new
> >blockers to the meta bug and remove them, which is all I want to
> >do.
> by mail, really ?
Yeah, "block xx by foo".
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UN
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:59:27AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
>
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 02:20:29PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 13:38]:
> > I know, tbm tried to build all packages on mips*. It would be intersting
> > to know, how other architectures behave. Also i have not seen any
> > comments from doko
On 5/11/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 14:39]:
> >> Why you did this metabug thing, and not just usertagged the bugs ? The
> >> results seems to be similar, but i don't think that a metabug can be
> >> managed by email, usertags ar
* Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 14:39]:
> >> Why you did this metabug thing, and not just usertagged the bugs ? The
> >> results seems to be similar, but i don't think that a metabug can be
> >> managed by email, usertags are.
> >What can not be managed by email?
> The metabug itse
On 5/11/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 11:20]:
> Why you did this metabug thing, and not just usertagged the bugs ? The
> results seems to be similar, but i don't think that a metabug can be
> managed by email, usertags are.
What
* Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 11:20]:
> Why you did this metabug thing, and not just usertagged the bugs ? The
> results seems to be similar, but i don't think that a metabug can be
> managed by email, usertags are.
What can not be managed by email?
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://w
On 5/11/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 10:00]:
> > One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs
> > from the BTS?
>
> There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to
> provide such a way.
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 10:00]:
> > One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs
> > from the BTS?
>
> There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to
> provide such a way.
I've created the following meta bug: 366820
--
Martin
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 14:20]:
> > I know, tbm tried to build all packages on mips*. It would be intersting
> > to know, how other architectures behave. Also i have not seen any
> > comments from doko yet.
> I built mips and amd64, and in the mean time also powerpc and m
* Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 13:38]:
> I know, tbm tried to build all packages on mips*. It would be intersting
> to know, how other architectures behave. Also i have not seen any
> comments from doko yet.
I built mips and amd64, and in the mean time also powerpc and most o
Hi Andi,
On Wednesday, 10 May 2006, you wrote:
> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
I know, tbm tried to build all packages on mips*. It would be intersting
to know, how other architectu
* Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 09:13]:
> I'd certainly prefer we shipped with the least bugs, rather than with
> "fairly recent" software; I don't know if these goals contradict or
> concur in this particular case.
FWIW, the GCC 4.0.3 Status Report (2006-01-15) says, "It's in
> I didn't hit this problem myself yet, but it has been mentioned on
> sparclinux list that 4.1 currently miscompiles the sparc kernel.
Do you know if this still happens, and if so, whether someone has
tracked it down?
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> hi,
>
> > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for e
Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 10:09 +0200, Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
> what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
> is going to ship with 2.3?
An upload of python-defaults switching to 2.4 has been repeatedly asked
during the last months, and it was ignored by the maintainer.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
hi,
> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
is go
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 08:59]:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > > whether we could switch gcc to
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 08:59]:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> > freeze etch rather soon
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:15:21AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-10 23:11]:
>> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release
>> team whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch.
> I'm in favour of gcc 4.1 as it would provid
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
and we want to be on time this t
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
> an
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-10 23:11]:
> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
> and we want to be
33 matches
Mail list logo
