On 27.04.25 00:07, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
and what is wrong with amdgcn-tools? I can build with -18
sure, you can, it's just a package providing symlinks. and then gcc-13
ftbfs, because some gcn targets are missing.
Le 26/04/2025 à 15:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:08:39PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I don't see in the changelog for llvm 18 or 19 that the targets were
removed, so perhaps the removal was unintentional? Sylvestre, can those be
added back, so that amdgcn-tools
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:08:39PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I don't see in the changelog for llvm 18 or 19 that the targets were
> removed, so perhaps the removal was unintentional? Sylvestre, can those be
> added back, so that amdgcn-tools can move to a newer llvm? This is one of
> t
On 10.01.25 13:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 10/01/2025 12:47, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Le 10/01/2025 à 12:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
Sylvestre, can those be added back, so
that amdgcn-tools can move to a newer llvm?
Sure, do you know how to do that?
I don't think it was inte
On 10/01/2025 12:47, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Le 10/01/2025 à 12:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
Sylvestre, can those be added back, so
that amdgcn-tools can move to a newer llvm?
Sure, do you know how to do that?
I don't think it was intentional
I don't know. I see this in debian/rules
Le 10/01/2025 à 12:33, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> On 10.01.25 12:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Control: clone -1 -2
>> Control: reassign -2 src:llvm-toolchain-19
>> Control: retitle -2 llvm-toolchain-19: readd gcn targets
>> Control: block -1 with -2
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:
Le 10/01/2025 à 12:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> Sylvestre, can those be added back, so
> that amdgcn-tools can move to a newer llvm?
Sure, do you know how to do that?
I don't think it was intentional
Thanks
S
On 10.01.25 12:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: reassign -2 src:llvm-toolchain-19
Control: retitle -2 llvm-toolchain-19: readd gcn targets
Control: block -1 with -2
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:05:59 +0100 Matthias Klose wrote:
On 12.12.24 00:07, Bastian Germann w
Processing control commands:
> clone -1 -2
Bug #1084066 [src:amdgcn-tools] amdgcn-tools: Please upgrade build-dep to
llvm/clang 18 or 19
Bug 1084066 cloned as bug 1092643
1081250 was blocked by: 1084065 1084066 1084067 1084068 1084069 1084070 1084071
1084072 1084073 1084074 1084075 1084
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: reassign -2 src:llvm-toolchain-19
Control: retitle -2 llvm-toolchain-19: readd gcn targets
Control: block -1 with -2
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:05:59 +0100 Matthias Klose wrote:
On 12.12.24 00:07, Bastian Germann wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:50:41 +0200 Sylvestr
On 12.12.24 00:07, Bastian Germann wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:50:41 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru
wrote:
We would like to remove llvm-toolchain-17 and this package uses LLVM 17.
Please update to 19 (preferred) or 18
Please also get rid of the unnecessary llvm-* Build-Dependencies when
updating the l
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:50:41 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
We would like to remove llvm-toolchain-17 and this package uses LLVM 17.
Please update to 19 (preferred) or 18
Please also get rid of the unnecessary llvm-* Build-Dependencies when updating
the llvm version.
nst atomic&) = delete;
|^~~~
/usr/include/c++/12/bits/shared_ptr_atomic.h:600:7: note: candidate: ‘void
std::atomic >::operator=(std::shared_ptr<_Tp>) [with _Tp =
A]’
600 | operator=(shared_ptr<_Tp> __desired) noexcept
| ^~~~
```
This may be a bug
Source: amdgcn-tools
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
We would like to remove llvm-toolchain-17 and this package uses LLVM 17.
Please update to 19 (preferred) or 18
Thanks
Sylvestre
-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (600, '
Your message dated Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:35:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076503: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #974781,
regarding gcc-10: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-11
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem makes dpkg fail with attempt
> of removal of libdebuginfod-common
Bug #1065603 [libdebuginfod1t64] libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem breaks
the upgrade
Changed Bug title to 'libdebuginfod1t64 depende
Control: retitle -1 libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem makes dpkg fail with
attempt of removal of libdebuginfod-common
On 2024-03-07 11:28:21 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> When I wanted to upgrade, this ended up with
>
> dpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of libdebuginf
Package: libdebuginfod1t64
Version: 0.190-1.1
Severity: serious
When I wanted to upgrade, this ended up with
dpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of libdebuginfod-common:
libdebuginfod1t64:amd64 depends on libdebuginfod-common (>= 0.190-1.1).
dpkg: error processing package libdebugin
Your message dated Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:37:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1017677: fixed in autofdo 0.19-2.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1017677,
regarding autofdo: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-14
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On 25.07.23 14:30, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:25:43 +0100 Bastian Germann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:43:14 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
> archive, it would be great if you could upgrade
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:25:43 +0100 Bastian Germann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:43:14 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
> archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -14.
>
> We are trying NOT to ship B
Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:20:47 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1017666: fixed in amdgcn-tools 15
has caused the Debian Bug report #1017666,
regarding amdgcn-tools: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-14
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
u...@debian.org (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
> Will do, then.
Pushed, along with one more build fix (to accommodate our ncbi-vdb
installation layout fully) and two other tuneups to debian/rules.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuf
Nilesh Patra writes:
> packages, which includes gcc. So unless the bug
> report is very critical, the fix for the said bug _might not_ be
> uploaded.
Good point. :-/
> And so it may be a good idea to go ahead with the workaround.
Will do, then.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu,
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 04:54:37PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes:
>
> >https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/ncbi-igblast/-/jobs/3822434
>
> This compiler crash looks like
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137 , already fixed in
> the gcc-12 branch. I c
Hi, Andreas.
Andreas Tille writes:
>https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/ncbi-igblast/-/jobs/3822434
This compiler crash looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108137 , already fixed in
the gcc-12 branch. I can supply a workaround if necessary, but am
hopeful that an upcoming
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:43:14 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -14.
We are trying NOT to ship Bookworm with llvm-toolchain-13.
llvm-defaults is now pointing to -14.
The package
> This libffi upgrade also completely breaks all use of Wayland on
> aarch64.
No, this is likely #1022232, which is now being fixed in 3.4.3-4. This issue
which I see here is not yet reproducible upstream. Once you rebuild python with
the 3.4.3 uploads, the tests start passing again.
Hi,
This libffi upgrade also completely breaks all use of Wayland on
aarch64. We use libffi to dispatch protocol messages (requests
received by the server and events received by the client) to
native-code handlers, and we are now getting completely nonsensical
values from it.
Can this upgrade
Your message dated Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:20:23 +0200
with message-id
and subject line fixed in unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #1000891,
regarding creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-12 or 13
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:20:23 +0200
with message-id
and subject line fixed in unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #1000927,
regarding creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-14
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Your message dated Wed, 07 Sep 2022 07:16:02 +0800
with message-id <1b925b5faa4d8c66a7c0223854144a9b497f5ff8.ca...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-12 or 13
has caused the Debian Bug report #1000927,
regarding creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolch
Source: autofdo
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -14.
We are trying NOT to ship Bookworm with llvm-toolchain-13.
llvm-defaults is now pointing to -14.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
Source: amdgcn-tools
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -14.
We are trying NOT to ship Bookworm with llvm-toolchain-13.
llvm-defaults is now pointing to -14.
Thanks
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 1000927 creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-13 or 14
Bug #1000927 [src:creduce] Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-13 or 14
Changed Bug title to 'creduce: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-13 or 14' from
'Plea
Your message dated Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:33:29 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1000892: fixed in cvise 2.4.0-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1000892,
regarding cvise: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-12 or 13
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 1000892 serious
Bug #1000892 [src:cvise] cvise: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-12 or 13
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
severity 1000892 serious
thanks
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -13 (or -12).
It has:
llvm-9-dev [armel armhf], libclang-9-dev [armel armhf], clang-9 [armel
armhf], clang-format-9 [armel armhf],
llvm-toolchain-9 has now been
Source: autofdo
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -13 (or -12).
Bookworm won't ship with llvm-toolchain-11
llvm-defaults is now pointing to -13.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
Source: creduce
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, it would be great if you could upgrade to -13 (or -12).
Bookworm won't ship with llvm-toolchain-11
llvm-defaults is now pointing to -13.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
Source: cvise
Version: 2.1.0-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -13 (or -12).
It has:
llvm-9-dev [armel armhf], libclang-9-dev [armel armhf], clang-9 [armel
armhf], clang-format-9 [armel armhf
Source: creduce
Version: 2.9~20181016-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -13 (or -12).
Thanks,
Sylvestre
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy
Your message dated Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:33:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#974802: fixed in autofdo 0.19-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #974802,
regarding autofdo: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-11
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:33:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#974802: fixed in autofdo 0.19-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #974802,
regarding autofdo: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-11
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On 15/02/2021 10.07, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 2/14/21 5:58 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 19:52:10 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
[The release team are] pretty concerned about a couple of known RC bugs
which need the proper attention of people familiar with upgrade paths
as
Dear maintainers,
with the removal of gcc-8 the upgrade from
Buster to testing/Bullseye works now flawlessly.
Thank you very much!
On 2/14/21 5:58 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 19:52:10 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> [The release team are] pretty concerned about a couple of known RC bugs
>> which need the proper attention of people familiar with upgrade paths
>> as there's po
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 19:52:10 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> [The release team are] pretty concerned about a couple of known RC bugs
> which need the proper attention of people familiar with upgrade paths
> as there's potential to leave upgrading systems unbootable and/or
> with
Your message dated Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:07:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#954831: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #961990,
regarding Implicit conflict between libgcc1 and libgcc-s1 prevents upgrade
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:07:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#954831: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #961990,
regarding Implicit conflict between libgcc1 and libgcc-s1 prevents upgrade
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:01:28 +0100
with message-id <95bc08ce-c9de-9ee4-f24a-e4d4e3207...@debian.org>
and subject line fixed
has caused the Debian Bug report #974781,
regarding gcc-10: Please upgrade to llvm-toolchain-11
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim th
Package: autofdo
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -11.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
Package: autofdo
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -11.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
Package: gcc-10
Version: 10.2.0-16
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
As part of the effort to limit the number of llvm packages in the
archive, please upgrade to -11.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'te
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 964477 libgcc1
Bug #964477 [apt] libc6-dev: Fails to cleanly upgrade from Stable
Bug reassigned from package 'apt' to 'libgcc1'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #964477 to the same values
previous
reassign -1 libgcc1
forcemerge 961990 -1
severity -1 important
retitle -1 Implicit conflict between libgcc1 and libgcc-s1 prevents upgrade
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:30:34PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> reassign 964477 apt
That tends to be the worst thing you can do to such a bugrep
Your message dated Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:52:00 +
with message-id <20200213085200.ga401...@espresso.pseudorandom.co.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#950715: libgcc1: upgrade from 1:9.2.1-25 to libgcc1
1:10-20200202-1 breaks gcc with gold linker
has caused the Debian Bug report #950715,
reg
Your message dated Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:19:22 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#950624: fixed in gcc-10 10-20200211-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #950624,
regarding libgcc-s1: libgcc_s.so.1 can be missing after upgrade on usrmerge
systems
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:49:25 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#950624: fixed in gcc-10 10-20200210-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #950624,
regarding libgcc-s1: libgcc_s.so.1 can be missing after upgrade on usrmerge
systems
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 libgcc1 should add a Breaks on cryptsetup-initramfs
Bug #950551 [libgcc1] libgcc1: after libgcc1 upgrade, can't unlock luks
partition at boot
Changed Bug title to 'libgcc1 should add a Breaks on cryptsetup-initramfs' from
'libgcc1
Control: retitle -1 libgcc1 should add a Breaks on cryptsetup-initramfs
Hi Matthias, initramfs-tools maintainers,
> Am Montag, den 03.02.2020, 18:59 +0100 schrieb Matthias Klose:
> > I'm fine to add some breaks if required.
cryptsetup-initramfs version 2:2.2.2-3 already worked around the issue
a
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:10-20200202-1
Severity: serious
Upgrading libgcc1 to version >= 10 on a system breaks gcc-7, gcc-8 and
gcc-9 when using the gold linker, as gcc passes the wrong path to the
libgcc_s.so.1 library. All architectures are affected, example on amd64,
starting from a bullseye
Version: 10-20200204-1
On 2/5/20 9:55 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>* Add breaks on libgcc-N-dev packages on arm64, s390x and sparc64.
>> Closes: #950550, #950579.
>
> This is not enough. All architectures are affected when using gold.
this bug doesn't have anything to do with gold. Closi
Your message dated Wed, 5 Feb 2020 11:07:33 +0100
with message-id <74404b38-7b56-84bd-3a4d-2dfb1ca8a...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#950550: libgcc1: upgrade from 1:9.2.1-25 to libgcc1
1:10-20200202-1 breaks gcc
has caused the Debian Bug report #950550,
regarding libgcc1: upgrade
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #950550 {Done: Debian FTP Masters }
[libgcc1] libgcc1: upgrade from 1:9.2.1-25 to libgcc1 1:10-20200202-1 breaks gcc
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you m
control: reopen -1
control: severity -1 serious
control: found -1 gcc-10/10-20200202-1
control: found -1 gcc-10/10-20200204-1
On 2020-02-04 15:19, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> Source: gcc-10
> Source-Version: 10-20200204-1
>
> We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
Your message dated Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:19:36 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#950550: fixed in gcc-10 10-20200204-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #950550,
regarding libgcc1: upgrade from 1:9.2.1-25 to libgcc1 1:10-20200202-1 breaks gcc
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
libgcc-s1:amd64 10-20200202-1
| 2020-02-04 10:02:17 status unpacked libgcc-s1:amd64 10-20200202-1
| 2020-02-04 10:02:17 status half-configured libgcc-s1:amd64 10-20200202-1
| 2020-02-04 10:02:17 status installed libgcc-s1:amd64 10-20200202-1
| 2020-02-04 10:02:17 upgrade libgcc1:amd64 1:9.2.1-1 1
Am Montag, den 03.02.2020, 18:59 +0100 schrieb Matthias Klose:
> $ dpkg -S libgcc_s.so.1
> libgcc-s1:amd64: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1
> libgcc1: /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
>
> if you need the library in /lib, make sure that you depend on
> libgcc1, else it's
> found in /usr/lib/.
>
> I'm f
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:10-20200202-1
Followup-For: Bug #950551
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey!
On both my systems running unstable, libgcc-s1 is installed, but I
don't have /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1. So, it seems
something removes it. I have no clue on why
I can confirm this bug. After doing an apt full-upgrade, I faced the
same issue as OP. However, I was not able to fix it by downgrading
packages, but instead used a similar approach to the way described in
the btrfs bug #950556 [1].
After chrooting into the system, I changed the following file
On 2/3/20 3:46 PM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:35:21 +0200 dimit...@stinpriza.org wrote:
>> Package: libgcc1
>> Version: 1:9.2.1-25
>> Severity: grave
>> Justification: renders package unusable
>>
>> hey,
>>
>> after upgrading some latest packages on sid, i can no longer unlock
>
On 2/3/20 2:27 PM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> Package: libgcc1
> Version: 1:10-20200202-1
> Severity: important
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
>* What led up to the situation?
>
> apt update && apt upgrade -y
>
>* What exactly did you do (or not do)
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:35:21 +0200 dimit...@stinpriza.org wrote:
> Package: libgcc1
> Version: 1:9.2.1-25
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> hey,
>
> after upgrading some latest packages on sid, i can no longer unlock
luks
> partition and boot. message:
>
> "Please u
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:9.2.1-25
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
hey,
after upgrading some latest packages on sid, i can no longer unlock luks
partition and boot. message:
"Please unlock disk rootfs:
libgcc_s.so.1 must be installed for pthread-cancel to work
Aborted"
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:10-20200202-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation?
apt update && apt upgrade -y
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
before upgrade libgcc1:
ii libgcc1:sparc64 1:
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 gcc-8 8.2.0-11
Bug #915934 [libeigen3-dev] libeigen3-dev: cannot build with Eigen anymore
after upgrade of gcc-8 to 8.2.0-11
Bug reassigned from package 'libeigen3-dev' to 'gcc-8'.
No longer marked as found in versions eigen3/3.
Control: reassign -1 gcc-8 8.2.0-11
Control: retitle -1 gcc fails to compile Eigen code
Control: affects -1 libeigen3-dev
Control: forwarded -1 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 12:50:53AM +0100, Johannes 'josch' Schauer wrote:
> Package: libeigen3-dev
> Ve
Your message dated Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:30:29 +0200
with message-id <24ff2c4f-90d4-6e76-5411-1434f9dba...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: gfortran-doc: Unable to upgrade from 5:6.3.0-1 to 5:7.2.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #874735,
regarding gfortran-doc: Unable to upgrade from 5:6
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 888921 src:pcre3
Bug #888921 [gcc-7] gcc-7 upgrade adds symbol in pcre3
Bug reassigned from package 'gcc-7' to 'src:pcre3'.
No longer marked as found in versions gcc-7/7.3.0-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed ver
reassign 888921 src:pcre3
thanks
not a bug unless you can validate that these template instantiations are part of
the pcre3 ABI. thus fix pcre3.
On 31.01.2018 09:02, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: gcc-7
> Version: 7.3.0-1
> Severity: serious
> Control: affects -1 src:pcre3
>
> https://tests.repr
Package: gcc-7
Version: 7.3.0-1
Severity: serious
Control: affects -1 src:pcre3
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/pcre3.html
Successful build in buster:
...
--- debian/libpcrecpp0v5.symbols (libpcrecpp0v5_2:8.39-8_amd64)
+++ dpkg-gensymbolsy1tQ9U 2018-01-31
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 src:pcre3
Bug #888921 [gcc-7] gcc-7 upgrade adds symbol in pcre3
Added indication that 888921 affects src:pcre3
--
888921: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888921
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 887169 -1
Bug #887169 [libc6] libc6: recent upgrade to 2.26-3 broke Steam games (Civ5)
Bug 887169 cloned as bug 887327
> reassign -1 gcc-7
Bug #887327 [libc6] libc6: recent upgrade to 2.26-3 broke Steam games (Civ5)
Bug reassigne
Package: gfortran-doc
Version: 5:6.3.0-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The following dependency is not satisfied:
gfortran-doc : Depends: gfortran-7-doc (>= 7.2.0-1~) which is a virtual
package and is not provided by any available package
But gfortran-7-doc does not exist.
-- System Inform
Your message dated Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:20:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#867425: fixed in gcc-defaults-ports 1.172
has caused the Debian Bug report #867425,
regarding gcc-defaults: /usr/share/doc/gcc symlink recreated on every package
upgrade
to be marked as done.
This means that
Your message dated Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:20:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#867425: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.172
has caused the Debian Bug report #867425,
regarding gcc-defaults: /usr/share/doc/gcc symlink recreated on every package
upgrade
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Source: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.168d1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
The gcc preinst script removes the /usr/share/doc/gcc symlink (it tests
whether /usr/share/doc/gcc is a directory, but this test also succeeds
for a symlink to a directory), apparently as part of a
directory -> symlink conversion th
On 2017-05-31 16:01, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> I'll now build a gcc-6 with that Breaks added ...
... and can confirm that it fixes the upgrade path of
libreoffice-subsequentcheckbase (where I previously observed a kept back
tzdata (and openjdk-7) from jessie).
Andreas
Package: gcc-6-base
Version: 6.3.0-18
Severity: important
Hi Doko,
would it be possible to use gcc-6-base as the bigger hammer to smoothen
the openjdk 7 -> 8 upgrade from jessie to stretch?
The Breaks: tzdata-java added in openjdk-8-jre-headless (#857992)
improved the situation a lot, bu
Your message dated Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:15:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#838316: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #798029,
regarding Impossible to keep gcc-4.7 after upgrade to Debian Jessie
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:35:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#826583: fixed in gcc-5 5.4.0-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #826583,
regarding gdc-5: fails to upgrade from 'testing' - trying to overwrite
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/include/d/__entrypoin
Package: gdc-5
Version: 5.4.0-3
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
'testing'.
It installed fine in 'testing', then the upgrade to 'sid' fails
becau
Your message dated Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:42:54 +0200
with message-id <572364de.30...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#822959: Upgrade to new version: 6.1 stable
has caused the Debian Bug report #822959,
regarding Upgrade to new version: 6.1 stable
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Source: gcc-6
Version: 6.0.1-2
Severity: wishlist
New stable version of GNU Compiler Collection is available: 6.1
Please upgrade package to new stable version.
Your message dated Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:43:10 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#821336: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #716736,
regarding gcc-4.8-hppa64: Multiarch support broken in upgrade to 4.8.1-6 --
breaks Linux kernel build
to be marked as done
Your message dated Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:37:44 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#810809: fixed in gcc-6 6-20160220-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #810809,
regarding gnat-6-, libgnat{prj, vsn}6-dev--cross: fails to
upgrade from 'sid' - trying to overwrite /usr/bin/-gnatxref,
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 src:gcc-6 6-20160205-1
Bug #810809 {Done: Matthias Klose } [src:gcc-6-cross]
gnat-6-, libgnat{prj, vsn}6-dev--cross: fails to upgrade from
'sid' - trying to overwrite /usr/bin/-gnatxref,
/usr//lib/libgnat{vsn, prj}.a
Bug reassigned
Followup-For: Bug #810809
Control: reassign -1 src:gcc-6 6-20160205-1
Control: reopen -1
Control: affects -1 + src:gcc-6-cross src:gcc-6-cross-ports
Hi,
the *gnat*-cross package relationships seem not to work correctly, yet:
Selecting previously unselected package gnat-6-aarch64-linux-gnu.
P
Your message dated Sun, 07 Feb 2016 00:08:46 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#813081: fixed in gcc-6 6-20160205-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #813081,
regarding lib{, x}32stdc++6-6-dbg, libgccjit-6-doc: fails to upgrade from 'sid'
- trying to overwrite /usr/lib{,
1 - 100 of 303 matches
Mail list logo
