Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:20:17PM CEST: >> On 19 Sep 2010, at 18:14, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> Rainer just confirmed a regression in this thread: >>>

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On 9/19/2010 12:57 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 9/19/2010 11:45 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing still >> quits part-way through with some sort of make-related issue (as reported >> in detail previously). > > Odd. My last test on M

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:20:17PM CEST: > On 19 Sep 2010, at 18:14, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Rainer just confirmed a regression in this thread: > > > > (his latest message hasn't shown up in the archive

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On 9/19/2010 3:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > The 'make' used is GNU make 3.79.1. Yikes. Where did THAT come from? MSYS has provided at least make-3.81 for several years; the current msys make is 3.82. > There is a 'mingw32-make' which is > GNU make 3.82, but does not seem to work under MSYS.

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: The 'make' used is GNU make 3.79.1. Yeah, that has the same bug. There is a 'mingw32-make' which is GNU make 3.82, but does not seem to work under MSYS. That one's not for you, normally. IIUC it's for the development of, not with, MSYS. It is

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 09:27:08PM CEST: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>The above is produced today after re-installing MinGW/GCC using the > >>latest TDM GCC installer (with GCC 4.5.1). It is similar to what I > >>observed before. The test suite used to

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: The above is produced today after re-installing MinGW/GCC using the latest TDM GCC installer (with GCC 4.5.1). It is similar to what I observed before. The test suite used to work so I assume that the issue is due to some change in the past few months

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 08:45:08PM CEST: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 05:45:45PM CEST: > >>Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing > >>still quits part-way through with some sort o

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 05:45:45PM CEST: Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing still quits part-way through with some sort of make-related issue (as reported in detail previously). I don't have th

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 05:45:45PM CEST: > Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing > still quits part-way through with some sort of make-related issue > (as reported in detail previously). I don't have that previous report on my radar. C

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Den 2010-09-19 16:41 skrev Bob Friesenhahn: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >> I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > Yesterday I ran the libtool test suite on various machines here. The > test suite performed quite well (better than a week or two ago

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On 9/19/2010 11:45 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing still > quits part-way through with some sort of make-related issue (as reported > in detail previously). Odd. My last test on MinGW was very successful. This was version 1.3266 (ef5

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Hi Bob, On 19 Sep 2010, at 21:41, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. Yesterday I ran the libtool test suite on various machines here. The test suite

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Bob, On 19 Sep 2010, at 21:41, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >> I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > Yesterday I ran the libtool test suite on various machines here. The test > suite performed quite well (better than a

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. Yesterday I ran the libtool test suite on various machines here. The test suite performed quite well (better than a week or two ago) on Solaris 10 x86 & SPARC, FreeBSD 8.0, and OS-X L

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hallo Ralf, On 19 Sep 2010, at 18:14, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: >>> I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > >>> If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, >>> please speak up now! >

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: > > I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, > > please speak up now! Rainer just confirmed a regression in this thread:

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hallo Ralf, On 19 Sep 2010, at 14:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: >> I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > Great! > >> If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, >> please speak up

Re: module libposix

Hi Bruce, * Bruce Korb wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 12:00:37AM CEST: > I seem to be missing something and can't quite figure it out. > > I get these messages during autoreconf: > > >>build_libposix> autoreconf > >configure.ac:29: required file `build-aux/ltmain.sh' not found Use -i to have thi

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: > I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. Great! > If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, > please speak up now! I don't know of any confirmed regression that we have an