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

Bug#93597: marked as done (libgcj300-dev should Depend: on libgcj300)



Your message dated Mon, 28 May 2001 00:08:35 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <15121.31254.719834.751026@bolero>
and subject line fixed bugs in gcc-3.0 (3.0.ds6-0pre010526)
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 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Apr 2001 23:40:15 +0000
>From walters@cis.ohio-state.edu Tue Apr 10 18:40:15 2001
Return-path: <walters@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Received: from mail.cis.ohio-state.edu (cis.ohio-state.edu) [164.107.115.5] (root)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 14n7k7-0003Hk-00; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:40:15 -0500
Received: from verbum.org (root@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.112.16])
	by cis.ohio-state.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA21510
	for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from space-ghost.verbum.org (space-ghost.verbum.org [192.168.5.90])
	by verbum.org (Postfix (Debian/GNU)) with ESMTP id B246674FE
	for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by space-ghost.verbum.org (Postfix (Debian/GNU), from userid 1000)
	id 5A246E083E; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: libgcj300-dev should Depend: on libgcj300
X-Attribution: Colin
X-Face: %'w-_>8Mj2_'=;I$myE#]G"'D>x3CY_rk,K06:mXFUvWy>;3I"BW3_-MAiUby{O(mn"wV@m
 dd`)Vk[27^^Sa<qRKA=qTu-uV/qLcGrMm-}A24N2wgr)5%_46(#WMTajfXc_DBt)&'/(J1
User-Agent: Microsoft Gnus Express, Build 5.090001 (0.01)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Sender: walters@verbum.org
Original-Sender: walters+s@cis.ohio-state.edu
From: Colin Walters <walters@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 2001 19:39:03 -0400
Message-ID: <87d7ak1g14.church.of.emacs@space-ghost.verbum.org>
Lines: 19
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: libgcj300-dev
Version: 1:3.0-0pre010403
Severity: normal

I don't think libgcj300-dev is very useful without libgcj300.  Is
there a policy that -dev packages should depend on their non-dev
counterparts?

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux space-ghost 2.4.3 #1 Mon Apr 2 20:54:12 EDT 2001 ppc

Versions of packages libgcj300-dev depends on:
ii  gcj-3.0                 1:3.0-0pre010403 The GNU compiler for Java(TM).    
ii  libc6                   2.2.2-1          GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libc6-dev               2.2.2-1          GNU C Library: Development Librari
ii  zlib1g                  1:1.1.3-14       compression library - runtime     
ii  zlib1g-dev              1:1.1.3-14       compression library - development 

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 93597-done) by bugs.debian.org; 27 May 2001 22:10:16 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Sun May 27 17:10:16 2001
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 1548jm-0005Ir-00; Sun, 27 May 2001 17:10:14 -0500
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (doko@bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
	by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03363;
	Mon, 28 May 2001 00:08:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
	by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA01795;
	Mon, 28 May 2001 00:08:35 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:08:35 +0200 (MEST)
To: 98851-done@bugs.debian.org, 93597-done@bugs.debian.org,
        94576-done@bugs.debian.org, 96448-done@bugs.debian.org,
        96461-done@bugs.debian.org, 93343-done@bugs.debian.org,
        96348-done@bugs.debian.org, 96262-done@bugs.debian.org,
        97134-done@bugs.debian.org, 97905-done@bugs.debian.org,
        96451-done@bugs.debian.org, 95812-done@bugs.debian.org,
        93157-done@bugs.debian.org, 87000-done@bugs.debian.org,
        97030-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: fixed bugs in gcc-3.0 (3.0.ds6-0pre010526)
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <15121.31254.719834.751026@bolero>
Delivered-To: 93597-done@bugs.debian.org

gcc-3.0 (3.0.ds6-0pre010526) unstable; urgency=high

  * Urgency "high" for replacing the gcc-3.0 snapshots in testing, which
    now are incompatile due to the changed ABIs.
  * Upstream begins tagging with "gcc-3_0_pre_2001mmdd".
  * Tighten dependencies to install only binary packages derived from
    one source (#98851). Tighten libc6-dev dependency to match libc6.

gcc-3.0 (3.0.ds6-0pre010525) unstable; urgency=low

  * ATTENTION: The ABI (exception handling) changed. No upgrade path from
    earlier snapshots (you had been warned in the postinst ...)
    Closing #93597, #94576, #96448, #96461.
    You have to rebuild 
  * HELP is appreciated for scanning the Debian BTS and sending followups
    to bug reports!!!
  * Should we name debian gcc uploads? What about a "still seeking
    g++ maintainer" upload?
  * Fixed in gcc-3.0: #97030
  * Update patches for recent (010525) CVS sources.
  * Make check depend on build target (fakeroot problmes).
  * debian/rules.d/binary-libgcc.mk: new file, build first.
  * Free memory detection on the hurd for running the testsuite.
  * Update debhelper build dependency.
  * libstdc++-doc: Include doxygen generated docs.
  * Fix boring packaging bugs, too tired for appropriate changelogs ...
    #93343, #96348, #96262, #97134, #97905, #96451, #95812, #93157
  * Fixed bugs: #87000. 



Reply to: