Hi,
On 02/12/13 13:14, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
> toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
> alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
> toolchain
> for this
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
>>> I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
>>
>> this is not a question a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
> > I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
>
> this is not a question about any objections, but
Hi,
(2013/12/04 9:52), Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
>> I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
>
> this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc6
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
> I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
> toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
> alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
> to
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
> toolchain for these architectures. At least
I have no objection to moving to a unified version of gcc on hppa.
gcc-4.8
would be my choice.
On 2-Dec-13, at 7:14 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to
work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At l
Hi!
On 12/02/2013 01:14 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
> toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
> alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
> toolchain
> for
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #731069 [src:gcc-defaults] gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to
change using unified version of gcc
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
731069: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731069
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs
Source: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.123
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc,
because FTBFS of many packages occur by e.g. c++11
on ports which stayed using gcc-4.6 and g++-4.6,
ia64, powerpc, s390x, sparc, alpha, powerpcspe, ppc64, sh4.
And
12 matches
Mail list logo