Most of the code/ideas is coming from the gcc-field.pl script written by
for more information.
Probably needs some more error checking.
Logged In: YES
The c++filt matching criterion is overly-broad. There are
some packages (glib2 and some or maybe packages that use it,
for example) that have symbols that are munged by c++filt
but that are not C++ (and hence do not require a GCC field).
We've generally tried to avoid adding GCC to packages that
don't need it (minimize inter-tree differences, need to
remember "high" revisions and cascading deps for them), so
having this be a fatal validator error is not a good idea
for core IMO.
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.