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

Bug#766619: marked as done (cross-gcc-4.9-armhf is functional incomplete)

Your message dated Sun, 29 May 2016 01:11:24 +0000
with message-id <[🔎] E1b6pGG-0007Wx-18@franck.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#825591: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #766619,
regarding cross-gcc-4.9-armhf is functional incomplete
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

766619: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766619
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: src:cross-gcc-4.9-armhf
Version: 0.6
Severity: grave
Tags: sid jessie

This cross compiler is functional incomplete. It doesn't provide the same
frontends that the native compiler provides, and it unusable to cross build
gcc-4.9 itself.

This package should not enter testing until it is functional equivalent to the
native compiler.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 73+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package cross-gcc-4.9-armhf has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/825591

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing

Debian distribution maintenance software
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---

Reply to: