On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
[]
> should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would allow
> us to
> focus on supporting clang in the Xcode 4.x releases and encourage unification
> of
> any clang specific changes to info files between the 10.4 and 10.6 trees. It
> al
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
> []
>> should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would allow
>> us to
>> focus on supporting clang in the Xcode 4.x releases and encourage
>> unification of
>> any clan
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
> []
>> should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would allow
>> us to
>> focus on supporting clang in the Xcode 4.x releases and encourage
>> unification of
>> any clan
So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage warning
users that fink on 10.6 is currently incompatible with Xcode 4.2, and
suggesting a downgrade to Xcode 3.2.6.
Another short-term measure would be to put a test into fink to check for Xcode
4.2 on 10.6, and warn users tha
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:05:38AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage warning
> users that fink on 10.6 is currently incompatible with Xcode 4.2, and
> suggesting a downgrade to Xcode 3.2.6.
>
> Another short-term measure would b
On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:05:38AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage warning
>> users that fink on 10.6 is currently incompatible with Xcode 4.2, and
>> suggesting a downgrade
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:01:58AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:05:38AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> >> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage
> >> warning users that fink o
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:01:58AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:05:38AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> >> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage
> >> warning users that fink o
On 10/21/2011 12:17 PM, David Lowe wrote:
> Okeh, so i'm trying to apply a new patch to the latest version of
> FreeCiv. I thought i was really getting the hang of this - i made the patch
> as a p1 rather than p0, etc. Then when fink goes to build the package, the
> build stops because t
On 21/10/11 16:04 , Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
>> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> []
>>> should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would allow
>>> us to
>>> focus on supporting clang in the Xcode 4.x releas
On 21/10/11 17:05 , David R. Morrison wrote:
> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage warning
> users that fink on 10.6 is currently incompatible with Xcode 4.2, and
> suggesting a downgrade to Xcode 3.2.6.
We would have needed such a warning against xcode-4.0 since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/21/11 3:02 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 16:04 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
>>> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote: []
should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/21/11 3:08 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 17:05 , David R. Morrison wrote:
>> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink
>> webpage warning users that fink on 10.6 is currently incompatible
>> with Xcode 4.2, and sugges
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:01:58AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:05:38AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> >> So at the very least, we should put a news item on the fink webpage
> >> warning users that fink o
On 21/10/11 21:18 , Alexander Hansen wrote:
> On 10/21/11 3:02 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
>> What I mean is that a package that does not compile under clang
>> needs to include the above fix for xcode-4.2 if your automatic
>> switch to clang is implemented. But then it will probably no longer
>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 16:04 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
>>> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> []
should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:32:08PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On 21/10/11 21:18 , Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/11 3:02 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> []
>>> What I mean is that a package that does not compile under clang
>>> needs to include the above fix for xcode-4.2 if your automatic
Jack,
Am 21.10.2011 um 21:53 schrieb Jack Howarth:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:32:08PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
[...]
>> Is the possible benefit for a tiny minority of xcode-4.2 users on Snow
>> Leopard really worth all this hassle?
>
> Considering that i386 fink represents the most te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/21/11 3:44 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
>> On 21/10/11 16:04 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel
>>> wrote:
On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack
In view of the comments so far, the path of least resistance for fixing fink
to
use SL Xcode 4.2 obviously appears to be reverting the system compiler under
fink to gcc-4.2
and g++-4.2 for cc/gcc and c++/g++ respectively. The simple approach would be
to enhance
the compiler wrapper for path-p
20 matches
Mail list logo
