Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
FYI, seems one of the R10K patches fails for mips after all (compile failure
below). Probably a define that shifted and
On Friday 06 July 2007 06:08:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
As Adam already pointed/asked earlier, are we going to see Kevin's work being
merged with
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
About how many packages will break with the new gcc version? Of course
switch not used by default so that's ok.
Friday, 6. July 2007, Petteri Räty Ви написали:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
About how many packages will break with the new gcc version? Of course
switch not used by default so that's ok.
If this makes
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
gcc-4.2.0 won't rape your house and burn your pet anymore?
I'll give a test on ppc* soonish.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
On Friday, 6. July 2007 10:09, Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
About how many packages will break with the new gcc version?
Luca Barbato wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
gcc-4.2.0 won't rape your house and burn your pet anymore?
I see they got around to adding the
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 00:08:43 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
-DRAC-WAS-HERE == -O4 now?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 00:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
Been using it for a few weeks on ~x86-fbsd without issue now.
Any chance you could add a patch
On Friday 06 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
gcc-4.2.0 won't rape your house and burn your pet anymore?
I'll give a test
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
gcc-4.2.0 won't rape your house and burn your pet anymore?
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:08:20AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
Why 4.2.0 rather than 4.2.1 RC1? Are there problems with the RC, or are
all important
On Friday 06 July 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:08:20AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
Why 4.2.0 rather than 4.2.1 RC1?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
- From the topic of #emacs: glibc2.6 currently breaks emacs, use glibc2.5
On Friday 06 July 2007, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
From the topic of #emacs: glibc2.6 currently breaks emacs, use
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 00:08:43 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
Will we see the hardened gcc-4 patchset included in this?
--atj
--
[EMAIL
Luca Barbato wrote:
gcc-4.2.0 won't rape your house and burn your pet anymore?
I'll give a test on ppc* soonish.
I've been using it on x86 and ppc32 (ibook g4) for a week or two with no
issues.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
Are there any crazy upgrade paths like the good old libstdc++ bump?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
On Friday 06 July 2007, Jim Ramsay wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
Are there any crazy upgrade paths like the good old libstdc++ bump?
no
-mike
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007, Jim Ramsay wrote:
Are there any crazy upgrade paths like the good old libstdc++ bump?
no
And there was great rejoicing.
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 06 July 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
get your waaait dont do it votes in now, i plan on pushing:
glibc-2.6 ~amd64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~x86
gcc-4.2.0 ~amd64 ~x86
in the next day or so
sorry, forgot about ~ia64 as well
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
22 matches
Mail list logo