> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:30:02 -0500
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: BLFS Development List
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
> akhiezer wrote:
>
> > At any given time, the lame page is essentially only referencing one
> > particular versio
akhiezer wrote:
At any given time, the lame page is essentially only referencing one
particular version of gcc. If it needs a patch for 4.9.0, and then gcc
goes to 4.9.1 in lfs, that means that the lame page is now out-of-sync with
lfs: and when the lame page gets updated - whether same/new lame
> From: Christopher Gregory
> To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 04:11:46 +1200
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
> On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:15 +0100, akhiezer wrote:
> > > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200
>
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:15 +0100, akhiezer wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200
> > From: "Armin K."
> > To: BLFS Development List
> > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
> >
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:54:47 +0200
> From: "Armin K."
> To: BLFS Development List
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
> On 08/06/2014 04:15 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> > [post removed because of personal insults]
The post was dealing in
I thought a long time, took a bath thinking, and believe that have just
found a solution in revision 13843.
Thanks you all for the discussion, particularly, Christopher, from
systemd branch.
Particularly, I would do differently, but tried again to please
everybody: accepting Christopher's plead,
On 08/06/2014 04:15 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> [post removed because of personal insults]
To akhiezer:
Please leave personal insults out of this. For the sake of this mailing
list, I'll admit that I was wrong and let it be as it is. You win.
Please don't reply to the part below.
To everyone that's
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:39:40 +0200
> From: "Armin K."
> To: BLFS Development List
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
> > .
> > .
> >>
> >> If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error
On 08/06/2014 02:44 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0200
>> From: "Armin K."
>> To: BLFS Development List
>> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>>
> .
> .
>>
>> If (new) compiler restri
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0200
> From: "Armin K."
> To: BLFS Development List
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
.
.
>
> If (new) compiler restrictions/rules caused an error, then it will be a
> problem with any l
On 08/06/2014 02:03 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> On 06-08-2014 08:30, Armin K. wrote:
>> On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions?
>>>
>>> On the lame page it has:
>>>
>>> First, if you are using i686
On 06-08-2014 08:55, akhiezer wrote:
>> From: Christopher Gregory
>> To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org
>> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:23:59 +1200
>> Subject: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Would it be possible to pleas
On 06-08-2014 08:30, Armin K. wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions?
>>
>> On the lame page it has:
>>
>> First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem:
>>
>> This signals that
> From: Christopher Gregory
> To: blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:23:59 +1200
> Subject: [blfs-dev] When naming versions of gcc
>
> Hello,
>
> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions?
>
> On the lame page it ha
On 08/06/2014 01:23 PM, Christopher Gregory wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions?
>
> On the lame page it has:
>
> First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem:
>
> This signals that it is only for that version of gcc, which i
Hello,
Would it be possible to please use a wild card for gcc versions?
On the lame page it has:
First, if you are using i686 and gcc-4.9.0, fix a compile problem:
This signals that it is only for that version of gcc, which is not the
case as it also applies to 4.9.1.
So if gcc-4.9.x was used
16 matches
Mail list logo