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

Bug#1114530: marked as done (package description suggests gdb-bpf is for AVR microcontrollers)

Your message dated Mon, 8 Sep 2025 05:16:08 +0200
with message-id <643d0506-441a-48f0-8585-a526b192224a@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1114530: package description suggests gdb-bpf is for AVR microcontrollers
has caused the Debian Bug report #1114530,
regarding package description suggests gdb-bpf is for AVR microcontrollers
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.)


-- 
1114530: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1114530
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: gdb-bpf
Version: 2
Severity: minor

The binary package description says
 This package is primarily for avr developers and cross-compilers and is not needed by normal users or developers.

Isn't gdb-bpf for the (Extended) Berkeley Packet Filter? Based on a quick skim I don't think this source package incorporates any code from gdb-avr so I wonder how this happened.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 9/6/25 17:52, John Scott wrote:

Source: gdb-bpf
Version: 2
Severity: minor

The binary package description says
  This package is primarily for avr developers and cross-compilers and is not needed by normal users or developers.

Isn't gdb-bpf for the (Extended) Berkeley Packet Filter? Based on a quick skim I don't think this source package incorporates any code from gdb-avr so I wonder how this happened.


that is fixed in at least gdb-bpf 8 (16.2-8).

--- End Message ---
Reply to: