JimD wrote:
Jason Weisberger wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but then again:
On 5/28/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this security measure. In this case the tar file changed without changing the
name after you originally installed the package (or after it was downloaded
to the mirror that you are using...). This change could be a bugfix. By
making your
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:26 skrev Richard Fish:
I just have to say that if upstream authors include a bug-fix without
releasing a new version (and a differently named tarball), they need a
good clubbing.
I agree with that. Still, apparently that is what happened here. It's stupid,
but since the
On Sunday 28 May 2006 19:54, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a
hacked package.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with
a hacked package.
While that is possible I'm not really sure why you
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it
with a hacked
Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
likely.
because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who
created the
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:41, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
likely.
because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
The digest still changed so it
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volume per month
Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
who created the digests used..
what?
I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that
this is why making a new digest may not be a good
Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
will be a good file.
Well, that's what the digest verification is for, right. It ensures that he
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
will be a good file.
Well, that's what the digest verification is
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:25, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
who created the digests used..
what?
I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
I am using it becaue I am only
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
Why ask for problems when we have enough
quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
From:Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgTo:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgSubject:Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 ProblemsDate:Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200MIME-Version:1.0Received:from robin.gentoo.org
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:03, John Laremore wrote:
quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
stop insulting people
stop sending html mail
Nobody is bombing you - why did you suscribe to this mailing list, if you
don't want emails from it?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by
bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830
.
From: Bo ?rsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from robin.gentoo.org
On 5/28/06, John Laremore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quit f
John, donate your computer to charity. This whole internet thing is
just not for you...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but then again:
app-admin/perl-cleaner
x11-proto/xextproto
Jason Weisberger wrote:
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG.
Yes, very much so. See my Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?
thread.
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jason Weisberger wrote:
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG.
Yes, very much so. See my Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?
thread.
Yea, since the soname was the same, I was under the
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:40:06 +0400, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
app-admin/perl-cleaner
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only
happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched
On Saturday 27 May 2006 17:40, Jason Weisberger wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC,
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but
On 5/27/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so run ebuild blabla.ebuild digest
wow, that is hard...
Probably better to just delete the distfiles and let them be
downloaded again though...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
List,
I suppose that I just found it odd that it popped up after I switched
to GCC 4.1.1. Maybe coincidence. I'll delete all my digest files and
let them download again, because this is popping up on quite a few
packages. Maybe a bad mirror.
I will be going on vacation for about a week, and
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read a few things about 4.1.1 not playing well with GTK packages
on the forums, however, and that still appears to be the case. I'll
get exact error messages when I return and bring this thread up again.
Cool. Hopefully any problems
Saturday 27 May 2006 23:22 skrev Jason Weisberger:
I will be going on vacation for about a week, and when I get back I'll
try to do all this again, hell, maybe even from a fresh install. I
hear the benefits are worth it.
What benefits?
--
Bo Andresen
pgpt3NNfGxdh5.pgp
Description: PGP
Jason Weisberger wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but then again:
33 matches
Mail list logo
