Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.3-9
Severity: serious
gcc-2.95 fails to build on at least mips and sparc with:
dh_installchangelogs -a -Nprotoize-2.95-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dev-arch-% \
-Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dev-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dbg-arch-%
-Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dbg-arch-% -Ngcc-2.95 -Ncpp-2.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:32:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> David Schleef writes:
> >
> > What is the status of building cross compilers with the
> > debian source packages? I can get them to build after
> > fighting with it for a while, but it's a bit fragile.
> > It appears as though
Your message dated Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:53:52 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-defaults-0.7
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your r
Installing:
g77_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g77_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
gobjc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gobjc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
cpp_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
gcc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcc_2.95
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
chill_2.95.3-7_i386.deb: priority is overridden from optional to extra.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wrong p
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
> > fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
> > curious...here's the error:
>
> A quick follow-up...
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:51:09PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
> > fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
> > curious...here's the
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
> fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
> curious...here's the error:
A quick follow-up...
Seems to work fine if I just use the 'binary' target,
Hey...
Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
curious...here's the error:
make -f debian/rules2 TARGET=arch-% stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%
make[1]: Entering directory
`/src/gcc/2.95.3/2.95.3.ds5-9/gcc
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:58:16PM +1000, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote:
>
> ./mozilla-bin: error while loading shared libraries:
> /usr/local/src/mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined symbol: fstat
>
I see the problem. This is not a gcc bug, nor any other part of the tool
chain. When libnsp
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:58:16PM +1000, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote:
>
> anyway. anyone got any ideas as to what libc or gcc bugs might be causing this
> as the mozilla people haven't been able to give me a solution appart from
> "it works in redhat *shrug*, try this unrelated fix" :)
>
Mo
hey,
i'm not fantastically sure if this is the right place to send this, so feel
free to flame accordingly if you think i'm majorly out of place.
i've recently tried to compile mozilla 0.8.1 a few times (like 10 or so)
on debian sid, and i've run across an interesting bug, of sorts. it compiles
12 matches
Mail list logo
