Accepted:
cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-2_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-2_all.deb
cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_i386.deb
fastjar_3.3.2-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-2_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.3.2-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fix
Accepted:
cpp-2.96-doc_2.96-9_ia64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.96/cpp-2.96-doc_2.96-9_ia64.deb
cpp-2.96_2.96-9_ia64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.96/cpp-2.96_2.96-9_ia64.deb
g++-2.96_2.96-9_ia64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.96/g++-2.96_2.96-9_ia64.deb
g77-2.96-doc_2.96-9_ia64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-2.96_2.96-9_ia64.deb: package says priority is standard, override says
optional.
gcc-2.96-base_2.96-9_ia64.deb: package says priority is standard, override says
optional.
cpp-2.96_2.9
Accepted:
cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
fastjar_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
fixincludes_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
g++-3.3_3.3.2-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/g++-3
Accepted:
cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
fastjar_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
fixincludes_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
g++-3.3_3.3.2-2_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/g++-3
Your message dated Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:33:22 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#217240: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds4-2
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 n
Your message dated Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:59:29 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#218459: gcc: duplicate declaration of va_list
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
Your message dated Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:38:30 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#172031: [Bug libgcj/9077] gij is unable to run some
programs in the NBIO test suite
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
reassign 218566 gcc
quit
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:07:46AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> Package: kernel-source-2.6.0-test9
> Version: 2.6.0-test9-1
> Severity: important
> Justification: fails to build from source
>
> There is a compiler problem when compiling net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.o.
> What ot
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 218566 gcc
Bug#218566: Compilation fails: Can you help with submitting a gcc bug?
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-source-2.6.0-test9' to `gcc'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trackin
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12867
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1027
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
reopen 172031
thanks
It is not acceptable to close this bug under these terms. First off,
the source code *is* available (try 'apt-get source nbio'). Second off,
the detailed test case provided with the initial bug report still
results in a failure. The bug has not been fixed and is reproducibl
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:36:00AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>
> I would have been (and would still be) happy to do additional research
> if you can let me know what you and/or the GCC developers need from me
> over and above the test case I provided with the original bug report.
Looking ov
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is i486-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes8159
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 94
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o compile
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o-y_tst.o link
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o-y_tst.o execut
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7874
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/empty6.C (test for warnings, line 6)
FAIL: g++.eh/spec3.C Execution test
FAIL: g++.eh/spec4.C Execution test
XPASS:
> > I would have been (and would still be) happy to do additional research
> > if you can let me know what you and/or the GCC developers need from me
> > over and above the test case I provided with the original bug report.
>
> Looking over the bug report trail, it seems they asked for more inform
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:35:48PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>
>No there is no way to confirm this any more because NBIO does not
>compile any more with the current compiler, can you try it and tell
>how to download NBIO and compile it?
>
> NBIO does compile and is not difficult
> You may have been confused by the multiple layers of bug tracking going
> on here. The above was written by an upstream GCC maintainer, who isn't
> necessarily running Debian.
No, actually I understood that... mainly, I did not realize that I was
supposed to be managing this bug report with ups
21 matches
Mail list logo
