Bug#174440: marked as done (colorgcc: patch for g77)
Your message dated Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:32:21 -0500
with message-id <E18cvK9-0000ba-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#174440: fixed in colorgcc 1.3.2-6
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Dec 2002 07:43:04 +0000
>From tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au Fri Dec 27 01:43:04 2002
Return-path: <tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au>
Received: from dhcp24-145.bsee.swin.edu.au (scuzzie.home) [136.186.24.145]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18Rp96-0003Vp-00; Fri, 27 Dec 2002 01:43:04 -0600
Received: from tconnors by scuzzie.home with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18Rp8Z-0007hx-00; Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:42:31 +1100
From: Tim Connors <tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: colorgcc: patch for g77
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:42:30 +1100
Message-Id: <E18Rp8Z-0007hx-00@scuzzie.home>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
tests=PATCH_UNIFIED_DIFF,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: colorgcc
Version: 1.3.2-4.2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
I wasn't sure whether there was any specific work required to get
colorgcc working with g77, so linked /usr/lib/colorgcc/g77 to
/usr/bin/colorgcc, compiled a program to test things out. I patched[1]
the colorgcc file to recognise the name "g77", and tested things. It
seems to work - it colorized the warnings my little hello world
program produced just fine. Perhaps, if nothing elses needs to be
done, you could include this patch in the next version?
[1] diff --unified /usr/bin/colorgcc.old /usr/bin/colorgcc
--- /usr/bin/colorgcc.old 2002-12-27 18:39:48.000000000 +1100
+++ /usr/bin/colorgcc 2002-12-27 18:40:08.000000000 +1100
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@
$option = $1;
$value = $2;
- if ($option =~ m/cc|c\+\+|gcc|g\+\+/)
+ if ($option =~ m/cc|c\+\+|gcc|g\+\+|g77/)
{
$compilerPaths{$option} = $value;
}
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux scuzzie 2.4.20-rc3 #7 Sun Dec 15 19:04:32 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages colorgcc depends on:
ii bash 2.05b-3 The GNU Bourne Again SHell
ii perl 5.6.1-7 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl-modules [libansicolor-pe 5.6.1-7 Core Perl modules.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 174440-close) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Jan 2003 22:38:19 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Sun Jan 26 16:38:18 2003
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18cvPu-0007e8-00; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:38:18 -0600
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 18cvK9-0000ba-00; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:32:21 -0500
From: David Weinehall <tao@kernel.org>
To: 174440-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.29 $
Subject: Bug#174440: fixed in colorgcc 1.3.2-6
Message-Id: <E18cvK9-0000ba-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:32:21 -0500
Delivered-To: 174440-close@bugs.debian.org
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
colorgcc, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
colorgcc_1.3.2-6.diff.gz
to pool/main/c/colorgcc/colorgcc_1.3.2-6.diff.gz
colorgcc_1.3.2-6.dsc
to pool/main/c/colorgcc/colorgcc_1.3.2-6.dsc
colorgcc_1.3.2-6_all.deb
to pool/main/c/colorgcc/colorgcc_1.3.2-6_all.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 174440@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
David Weinehall <tao@kernel.org> (supplier of updated colorgcc package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2003 00:09:42 +0100
Source: colorgcc
Binary: colorgcc
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.3.2-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: David Weinehall <tao@kernel.org>
Changed-By: David Weinehall <tao@kernel.org>
Description:
colorgcc - Colorizer for GCC warning/error messages
Closes: 103215 115215 123500 132140 147011 174440
Changes:
colorgcc (1.3.2-6) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New maintainer (Closes: #123500)
* debian/control rewritten
* Fixed debian/copyright to only reference the GPL
* Cleaned up debian/changelog (only cosmetical changes)
* Colorize g77 too (Closes: #174440)
* Added gobjc while at it
* Build-Depends-Indep on debhelper (>> 4.1.0)
| No more /usr/doc
* Bumped compat-version to 4
* Rewrote debhelper configuration
* Added a modified version of the manual-page by Joe Wreschnig
(Closes: #103215, #115215)
* Changed all references to the upstream website to point
at its new location
* Fixed colorgcc to recognize gcc-3.0 and akin (Closes: #147011)
* 1.3.2-4.2 marked /etc/colorgc/colorgccrc as a conffile (Closes: #132140)
Files:
7ee70a7d30179161d08c32fe833e2b94 571 devel extra colorgcc_1.3.2-6.dsc
d9e297bc34b8ebd4a20be1caff028faa 4926 devel extra colorgcc_1.3.2-6.diff.gz
e6af458c63cd918ee182b34357c0b9da 9528 devel extra colorgcc_1.3.2-6_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+M/Y1QSseMYF6mWoRAg+KAJ4roRk+iAq6AUbibbtm/nHwcim5JQCbBoxB
Byyrc0FXjdmIUD1onUGaXDM=
=VaGW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: