On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:06:13PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:50:04 +0200 (CEST)
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > > it was suggested multiple times that the whole fixinc step is
> > > ultimately
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:50:04 +0200 (CEST)
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > it was suggested multiple times that the whole fixinc step is
> > ultimately harmful and serves no useful purpose and probably should
> > be disabled in built
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> it was suggested multiple times that the whole fixinc step is
> ultimately harmful and serves no useful purpose and probably should be
> disabled in built packages outright. Is there a reason not to do it?
> Even Redhat appears to do the slimming in
On 2017-Apr-15, at 11:30 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-15, at 2:30 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:27:29PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>>> I've seen material quoted from a exp-run that reported
>>> that about 54(?) ports were then blocked by lang/gcc6-aux
>>> not
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:27:29PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> I've seen material quoted from a exp-run that reported
> that about 54(?) ports were then blocked by lang/gcc6-aux
> not building.
Although the first is an older run (the last complete run IIUC), there
were 50 and 51 respectively as
On 2017-Apr-14, at 8:07 PM, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
> Is there a reason why you need ada support (that seems to be the only
> real reason for installing gcc6 vs gcc6-aux)? gcc6-aux uses a snapshot of
> gcc6 with custom options.
> Thanks!
> -Ngie
I got to lang/gcc6-aux
On 2017-Apr-14, at 4:30 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> I didn’t want to get into this but the problem is that as part of it's
>> build/bootstrapping process, GCC historically takes system headers
>> and attempts to “fix” them. I am
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:30:49 +1000 (AEST)
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > I didn't want to get into this but the problem is that as part of
> > it's build/bootstrapping process, GCC historically takes system
> > headers and attempts to
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> I didn’t want to get into this but the problem is that as part of it's
> build/bootstrapping process, GCC historically takes system headers
> and attempts to “fix” them. I am unsure the fixes do anything at all
> nowadays but the effect is that the
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 20:38, Mark Millard wrote:
>
> [I accidentally sent the original of the "on . . . wrote"
> below to the wrong toolchain list. This just corrects that.]
>
> [I'll also note that lang/gcc6-aux was indirectly attempted
> when I tried to build
[I accidentally sent the original of the "on . . . wrote"
below to the wrong toolchain list. This just corrects that.]
[I'll also note that lang/gcc6-aux was indirectly attempted
when I tried to build ports-mgmt/synth on a Pine64+ 2GB
(an aarch64 context). I had noticed the recent update claiming
11 matches
Mail list logo