Francesco Riosa wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:22 pm, Spider wrote:
the ~x86 version doesn't exhibit this problem, btw. stabilizing this
version might be prudent.
1.5.14 doesnt have any open issues for it so i've pushed it to stable
emerge -pv gcc
[ebuild U
On Monday 11 April 2005 07:24 am, Francesco Riosa wrote:
gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `as': No such file or directory
run `binutils-config 1`
there's a bug open atm where portage doesnt seem to run pkg_postinst() for
some reason and thus when you upgrade your binutils, the proper
Should I *not* emerge this gcc? I usually hold off on gcc updates when
I'm in the middle of other testing. Right now, I'm doing a lot of beta
testing with R and Atlas, so I held off when the latest gcc showed up
after emerge sync.
Spider wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger
One thing... Maybe its just me... or maybe they are in no way related,
but I seem to have heard of a lot more 'libtool' problems when using a
snapshot version instead of a regularly numbered version, is there a
reason?
On Apr 7, 2005 11:46 PM, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
Uh, there isn't any such thing. If you mean this:
Mon Mar 21 14:05:58 2005
