Bug#465463: marked as done (cyclic build dependencies on AMD64)
Your message dated Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:30:43 +0100
with message-id <18353.51635.797241.519409@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Re: Bug#465463: cyclic build dependencies on AMD64
has caused the Debian Bug report #465463,
regarding cyclic build dependencies on AMD64
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.)
--
465463: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=465463
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gcc-defaults
Severity: normal
I've been attempting to rebuild some packages from sid on AMD64 and
noticed what appears to be a cyclic build dependency between gcc-4.2 and
gcc-defaults.
The gcc-4.2 source lists the following build dependency:
gcc-multilib [amd64 i386 powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc kfreebsd-amd64]
While, gcc-defaults (the source package for gcc-multilib) lists:
gcc-4.2-base (>= 4.2.2-3)
which is provided by the gcc-4.2 package.
Am I missing something?
--
Jamin W. Collins
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jamin W. Collins writes:
> Package: gcc-defaults
> Severity: normal
>
> I've been attempting to rebuild some packages from sid on AMD64 and
> noticed what appears to be a cyclic build dependency between gcc-4.2 and
> gcc-defaults.
>
> The gcc-4.2 source lists the following build dependency:
>
> gcc-multilib [amd64 i386 powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc kfreebsd-amd64]
>
> While, gcc-defaults (the source package for gcc-multilib) lists:
>
> gcc-4.2-base (>= 4.2.2-3)
>
> which is provided by the gcc-4.2 package.
>
> Am I missing something?
no. you do need a compiler to build a compiler.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: