[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#517767: marked as done (linux-headers-2.6-686 indirectly depends upon gcc-4.1)



Your message dated Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:08:46 +0100
with message-id <20090302070846.GA7248@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#517767: linux-headers-2.6-686 indirectly depends upon gcc-4.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #517767,
regarding linux-headers-2.6-686 indirectly depends upon gcc-4.1
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 responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
517767: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=517767
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-headers-2.6-686
Version: 2.6.26+17
Severity: minor

Package linux-headers-2.6-686 (but same problem on -powerpc at least) indirectly depends upon gcc-4.1, while gcc-4.3 is default for Lenny.

Regards


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
  APT prefers proposed-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:46:35PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Package linux-headers-2.6-686 (but same problem on -powerpc at least) indirectly depends upon gcc-4.1, while gcc-4.3 is default for Lenny.

No bug. The kernel needs a more strict compiler version. Unstable uses
4.3 now.

Bastian

-- 
Extreme feminine beauty is always disturbing.
		-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4


--- End Message ---

Reply to: