Robert Jordens writes:
> Hello!
>
> [Tue, 05 Jul 2005] Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > - - 5-day NMU for all C++ library packages, which can be converted, but
> > are left alone.
> >
> > i.e. if libfoo1++ depends on libbar1++, libfoo1++ can be NMU'ed 5 days
> > after libbar1++ is uploaded.
>
> S
Hello!
[Tue, 05 Jul 2005] Matthias Klose wrote:
> - - 5-day NMU for all C++ library packages, which can be converted, but
> are left alone.
>
> i.e. if libfoo1++ depends on libbar1++, libfoo1++ can be NMU'ed 5 days
> after libbar1++ is uploaded.
Since NMUs are allowed now: Are they allowed a
NMU's for all C++ libraries, not depending on any other C++ library
are now allowed.
Matthias
Matthias Klose writes:
> For the time until all C++ libraries are converted, we use the
> following NMU policy for uploads related to the C++ ABI change:
>
> - - 0-day NMU's allowed for all C++ libra
* Olaf van der Spek:
>> I don't know if it's related, but roughly since the GCC 4.0 upload, I
>> get strange assembler warnings for perfectly valid C++ programs:
>
> I got them too but it seems they're now 'fixed' in unstable.
Seems to be the case, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
On 7/12/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthias Klose:
>
> > With today's dinstall run, new gcc/g++ packages are entering the
> > archives and GCC 4.0 is the default gcc/g++. Starting from now, please
> > DON'T upload any C++ code, which build-depends on a library written in
> >
* Matthias Klose:
> With today's dinstall run, new gcc/g++ packages are entering the
> archives and GCC 4.0 is the default gcc/g++. Starting from now, please
> DON'T upload any C++ code, which build-depends on a library written in
> C++ that is not yet converted to the new C++ ABI. Details for th
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:50:37PM +0300, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I don't know much about the SH port either, except that it's been dead
> for years now. Not much point in trying to support it, I'd say.
Okay. It's been pointed out to me on IRC that the SH port is currently
seeing some renewed int
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Loïc Minier writes:
> > I had that very same customization for alpha *and* for sh builds, I
> > didn't see the same customization for sh. Is it safe to assume gcc-4.0
> > will work at its best under sh too?
>
> the patch is curr
Loïc Minier writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > A package which I am about to sponsor (plotutils) has CFLAGS += -mieee
> > > for alpha. Does the above mean it is ok to remove that now?
> > * Apply revised patch to make -mieee the default on alpha-linux,
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > A package which I am about to sponsor (plotutils) has CFLAGS += -mieee
> > for alpha. Does the above mean it is ok to remove that now?
> * Apply revised patch to make -mieee the default on alpha-linux,
> and add -mieee-disable switc
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > > * If you have workarounds to build with a specific gcc version on
> > > certain architectures, these should be removed. Also if th
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > * If you have workarounds to build with a specific gcc version on
> > certain architectures, these should be removed. Also if there are
> > specific optimization settings that h
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Matthias Klose wrote:
> * If you have workarounds to build with a specific gcc version on
> certain architectures, these should be removed. Also if there are
> specific optimization settings that have been used to workaround
> compiler bugs, these should be remove
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:56:46AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2005-07-05 Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Besides the C++ ABI change, all m68k and hppa packages depending on
> > libgcc1 have to be rebuilt to use libgcc2.
> [...]
>
> Hej,
> Who is responsible for this?
On 2005-07-05 Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Besides the C++ ABI change, all m68k and hppa packages depending on
> libgcc1 have to be rebuilt to use libgcc2.
[...]
Hej,
Who is responsible for this? The porters/buildd-maintainers
(recompiling just for these architectures and maki
15 matches
Mail list logo