https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #17 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Pete Moore from comment #16)
> If a 2.41.1 release is undesirable, another option could be to add a comment
> to the release notes of 2.41 to specify that makeinfo version 6.8 or higher
> is
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
Pete Moore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petemoore at gmx dot net
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
I should note however that we do not normally make further releases from a
branch unless there is an important bug that needs to be fixed. Given that it
is possible to work around this build problem, I
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #12)
> (In reply to vvinayag from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10)
> > > I backed out the offending patch.
> >
> > Is it possible to
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #13 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #12)
> (In reply to vvinayag from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10)
> > > I backed out the offending patch.
> >
> > Is it possible
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #12 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to vvinayag from comment #11)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10)
> > I backed out the offending patch.
>
> Is it possible to backport the revert to binutils-2_41-branch? We are using
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=3b23b03a863d351d2e25daa30b07e23f31350e82
commit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey ---
Maybe someone with this issue could try:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-August/129302.html
You really only need the first patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey ---
Oh never mind, they were here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-March/126468.html
Given the state of BFD doc stuff, I think it's best
to just back out my patch.
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at sourceware dot org
---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #4 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
> So the next question is - are you asking that commit 8bb23cdbb498 be
> reverted, so that the docs will build with older versions of texinfo,
> or that the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Jan,
Right, after downloading, building, installing and running lots of
different versions of texinfo, I can confirm that support for the
node style used by commit 8bb23cdbb498 was added with
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
--- Comment #2 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1)
> What is the minimum version now required ?
I don't know. My vague recollection from the earlier mail thread is that the
author of that patch also didn't really
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30703
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
17 matches
Mail list logo
