Re: Accepted gcc-defaults 1.118 (source all amd64)
On 05/14/2012 10:27 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 14.05.2012 09:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On 13.05.2012 18:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>> On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>>> which ones? are there any reports which are not tagged? I went through
>>>>>> the list of Lucas' new batch and tagged the appropriate ones.
>>>>> There were again some more in the last couple days. They should be tagged
>>>> I am only aware of these usertags:
>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org / qa-ftbfs-20120508
>>>> do you known about a new rebuild?
>>> From a trivial look the set from #672397 onwards on the usertagged bug list were
>>> all filed in the past three days.
>> looking at 98 and 99 this doesn't seem to be a "set".
> They're a "set" in that they appear after each other on the usertagged bug
> list. I didn't say they had sequential bug numbers, but possibly could have
> chosen a better description.
After rebuilding gpsd today I had to realize that the stack protector makes one
of the tools segfault since it was built with gcc 4.7. If gpsd wouldn't ship
with a largish test suite this fault would probably never have been detected
before the release - so this makes me wonder how many non-obvious bugs like this
the switch to 4.7 introduced - and how much the release of Whezy will be delayed
because of it.
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F