On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary build
failure.
Yes, please don't do
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary build
failure.
Yes, please don't do
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary
On Oct 31, Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:58:00 -0500,
Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like
someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
That's not the point of the bug report,
you should fix your package to build with gcc-3.2, so
that the switchover may happen with less pain.
I will attempt to build it with 3.2 on i386. I was a bit
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
Thanks.
--
Neil L. Roeth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:58:00 -0500,
Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
That's not the point of the bug
On Oct 31, Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:58:00 -0500,
Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd,
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
That's not the point of the bug report,
you should fix your package to build with gcc-3.2, so
that the switchover may happen with less pain.
I will attempt to build it with 3.2 on i386. I was a bit
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
Thanks.
--
Neil L. Roeth
At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:58:00 -0500,
Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone
has tweaked the s390 buildd.
Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt?
That's not the point of the bug
Hello all,
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not hugely, perhaps) to compile with gcc/g++-3.0.
This
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello all,
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not hugely,
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and
s390. It appears that the problem is that those architectures use
gcc/g++-3.0, rather than 2.95, as the default
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary build
failure.
Steve Langasek
postmodern
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:25:08PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I believe the g++ migration is now the only thing we're waiting on for
KDE3.
That was my understanding as well. Do you know the timeframe that this
is expected to take?
Nope, I'm pretty well removed from the C++ stuff.
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
The other question is, is this acceptable - that is, can I allow a build
failure on three architectures for a few {weeks,days}, or is that just
deemed too lazy? My personal
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:37:38PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
OK, last question, I swear 8^). The current version is kcdlabel_2.7-3.
Upstream has named their port to KDE3 kcdlabel-2.7-KDE3, so how do I go
about this? kcdlabel_2.7-KDE3-1? -4? Or something else like
kcdlabel-KDE3_2.7-1
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The default compiler on alpha is still gcc 2.95, to the best of my
knowledge. If the autobuilders are using 3.x, this is not reflected in
the default package layout for the architecture.
Where does one find the default package layout for
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:22:33PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The default compiler on alpha is still gcc 2.95, to the best of my
knowledge. If the autobuilders are using 3.x, this is not reflected in
the default package layout for
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$ madison gcc|grep unstable
madison -s unstable gcc
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not hugely, perhaps) to compile with gcc/g++-3.0.
This
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello all,
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
modified (not hugely,
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and
s390. It appears that the problem is that those architectures use
gcc/g++-3.0, rather than 2.95, as the default
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
Don't discriminate against architectures because of a temporary build
failure.
Steve Langasek
postmodern
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:25:08PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
I believe the g++ migration is now the only thing we're waiting on for
KDE3.
That was my understanding as well. Do you know the timeframe that this
is expected to take?
Nope, I'm pretty well removed from the C++ stuff.
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
The other question is, is this acceptable - that is, can I allow a build
failure on three architectures for a few {weeks,days}, or is that just
deemed too lazy? My personal
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:37:38PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
OK, last question, I swear 8^). The current version is kcdlabel_2.7-3.
Upstream has named their port to KDE3 kcdlabel-2.7-KDE3, so how do I go
about this? kcdlabel_2.7-KDE3-1? -4? Or something else like
kcdlabel-KDE3_2.7-1
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The default compiler on alpha is still gcc 2.95, to the best of my
knowledge. If the autobuilders are using 3.x, this is not reflected in
the default package layout for the architecture.
Where does one find the default package layout for
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:22:33PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The default compiler on alpha is still gcc 2.95, to the best of my
knowledge. If the autobuilders are using 3.x, this is not reflected in
the default package layout for
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$ madison gcc|grep unstable
madison -s unstable gcc
--
James
34 matches
Mail list logo
