Hello World!
I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
painless it was.
Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed
sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \
modules/filter/nroff.cpp
And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual patches)
sed -i 's
Andrew Benton wrote:
But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS.
Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a
fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internationalisation
support patch). I'm not sure what to do about that yet
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 09:49 CST:
I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
painless it was.
Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I
can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS).
But until I'm
On 4/17/06, Andrew Benton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello World!
I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
painless it was.
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http
On 4/17/06, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS.
Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a
fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internationalisation
Andrew Benton wrote:
Hello World!
I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
painless it was.
Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed
sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \
modules/filter/nroff.cpp
And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual patches
Hmm. Well, my knowledge of C++ isn't strong enough to say that's the
right idea or not. However, fedora is using the same patch, so it
seems safe:
seem to be an extra qualification error. This now fail an gcc 4.1 as it is
more strict on syntax. I correct lot of program is this way no pb
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
There was a solution posted to lfs-dev:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-March/056141.html
Thanks, that worked great. I probably could have worked that out for
myself if I'd taken five minutes to think about it.
That's another
of testing.
I don't think Gnome has any problem with gcc-4.1 or glibc-2.4. My gnome
build script ran from start to finish with no errors. Everything seems
to be working fine (though I've not had time to use everything).
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
This is great news Andy. If you would be so kind, please put these
findings in the appropriate wiki pages so other users can know what
changes are needed.
Done. The OpenSP-1.5.1 fix may not be needed. Hopefully OpenSP-1.5.2
will be released soon.
Andy
--
Andrew Benton wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march.
If you use the official glibc-2.4 release tarball, when you untar
glibc-libidn-2.4 folder, make sure you rename it libidn (so that the
folder
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, that's the current plan. We're trying to finish up the list of
tickets slated for 6.2 so we can branch for testing. Updated toolchain
for trunk will follow.
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk
release that, get it out the door, then we put
gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 in trunk and start testing that. People who want
the latest and greatest can build trunk.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
obsolete?
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST:
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
obsolete?
This issue
El Lunes, 17 de Abril de 2006 20:15, Andrew Benton escribió:
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
obsolete?
Due that
have to update both trunk and the branch, but we don't
want to confuse things either by not having a separate branch when LFS
trunk goes to gcc-4.1/glibc-new.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
obsolete?
You
Archaic wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I
really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the
mysql testsuite failures.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your
On 4/17/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I
really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the
mysql testsuite failures.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded
This is
On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to
indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql
bug.
Funny. The other duplicate of that bug was filed
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to
indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql
bug.
Funny. The other
24 matches
Mail list logo