[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Leonardo Rossetti changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|2252811 | Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Leonardo Rossetti changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2252811 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #68 from Brandon Nielsen --- I'm still here, I still update my copr[0] for new Fedora releases. Unfortunately I have not had any free time to dedicate lately to try to push this forward. [0] -

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #66 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/msp430-elf-toolchain.git/tree/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec?id=ce7ae5f87a34d51c6cba2aa304837efa72123bf9 SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #65 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/msp430-elf-toolchain.git/plain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec?id=d72254b91b613962fb44039094cc075d71c724d9 SRPM

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #64 from Andy Mender --- Apologies for the massive delay on this. I would mark armhfp and s390x as no-go platforms and proceed as is. Unfortunately, virtualized hardware doesn't always cut it and as far as I know, the armhfp

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #63 from Brandon Nielsen --- Build 02086380[0] works fine in F34 / Rawhide. No changes to the specfile. armhfp / s390x builds still time out. [0] -

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #62 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01945609-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #61 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01822678-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #60 from Andy Mender --- > I cannot recreate s390x failures locally, even tests work fine. I have no > idea what the issue is on koji. I experimented some with building on copr but > it seems to timeout even with the max

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #59 from Brandon Nielsen --- I cannot recreate s390x failures locally, even tests work fine. I have no idea what the issue is on koji. I experimented some with building on copr but it seems to timeout even with the max possible

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #58 from Brandon Nielsen --- Okay, I can verify the compiler works on armhfp. I'll just disable tests on that platform. Looking into s390x now, that will be harder since I don't seem to have any IBM big iron laying around... --

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #57 from Andy Mender --- > I'm still looking into what's going on with armhfp. I don't fully understand > the s390x issue either, but since that's an alternative architecture it's > less of a problem, right? s390x is still

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #56 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #55) > > Okay, looking into this more (also see comment 11, comment 12, comment 13, > > comment 14), the biggest issue I see is that it should be marked as

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #55 from Andy Mender --- > Okay, looking into this more (also see comment 11, comment 12, comment 13, > comment 14), the biggest issue I see is that it should be marked as bundled > with gdb and binutils, not gcc. I don't think

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #54 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #53) > Extra Koji build from the latest SRPM: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55638767 > > Fails on s390x, but I don't think it's the SRPMs

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #53 from Andy Mender --- Extra Koji build from the latest SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55638767 Fails on s390x, but I don't think it's the SRPMs fault. > It now carries a patch file, 2 actually, to

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #52 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01718805-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #51 from Brandon Nielsen --- Actually, ignore the Spec / SRPM from comment 50, I have a new build going that enables the binutils and gcc tests as well. I'll link them again when it completes. Rest of the comment still applies.

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #50 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01718629-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #49 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #48) > Apologies for the delay with this! > > I went through the various Packaging Guidelines and it doesn't seem like > there is anything against splitting the

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #48 from Andy Mender --- Apologies for the delay with this! I went through the various Packaging Guidelines and it doesn't seem like there is anything against splitting the package into multiple SPEC files. The only potential

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #47 from Brandon Nielsen --- Circling back to splitting this into multiple SPEC files, would that be allowed? They would all share the same source file, which seems like it may be confusing. But this SPEC file is getting unwieldy.

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #46 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #45) > I'm wondering whether perhaps it's not possible to split this into multiple > SPEC files and tackle each component separately? For instance, to do >

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #45 from Andy Mender --- I'm wondering whether perhaps it's not possible to split this into multiple SPEC files and tackle each component separately? For instance, to do msp430-elf-binutils or msp430-elf-gdb first. For instance,

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Brandon Nielsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nielsenb@jetfuse. | |net)

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(nielsenb@jetfuse.

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #42 from Brandon Nielsen --- I have solicited feedback on the devel list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/W72GCBDQEN2VHHHMTUB3ALWXVIXLV6RG/ -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, the devel list. Make sure you have a sensible subject that will get the attention of compiler/toolchain/cross-compiler people. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #40 from Brandon Nielsen --- Not to wear out my welcome, I have most of the changes above squared away and tested, just trying to figure out why I need to compile programs with the -B flag mentioned above. Not a huge deal, but

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #39 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Brandon Nielsen from comment #36) [Snip] > An additional question, since I've moved to setting the > '--prefix=%{_prefix}/%{target}' on configure, I've needed to add a matching >

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #38 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #37) > (In reply to Brandon Nielsen from comment #36) [Snip] > > One final question, do I need to run add a check step? They used to not > > work, but I think

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Brandon Nielsen from comment #36) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = MUST items = > > > > > > > > C/C++: > > > > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > > > > [?]: Package

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #36 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #35) > (In reply to Brandon Nielsen from comment #32) > > Spec URL: > > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development- > >

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwak...@redhat.com --- Comment #35

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #34 from Andy Mender --- > I don't see a pkgconfig provided by gmp-devel or libmpc-devel. No worries then. > I got rid of the remaining libtool archive. I'm afraid I don't understand > what header files or static objects

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #33 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Macros are never ignored, whether in comments or changelog. You need to double the % in those cases, or leave it out entirely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #32 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01577708-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #31 from Andy Mender --- Created attachment 1702414 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1702414=edit FUll review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #30 from Andy Mender --- After some fiddling, I managed to run `fedora-review` from the COPR build, thanks! > BuildRequires:gmp-devel > BuildRequires:libmpc-devel > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 32 > BuildRequires:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #29 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01575217-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #28 from Brandon Nielsen --- My strip "wrapper" (for want of a better term) isn't called on F33. I might try to port the workaround used for avr-gcc since it looks like it's lower maintenance than my solution, and actually works.

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #27 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #26) > The SPEC file looks better, but I'm having some issues trying to build it. > `fedora-pkg` refuses to download the source tarball, even though `wget` gets >

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #26 from Andy Mender --- The SPEC file looks better, but I'm having some issues trying to build it. `fedora-pkg` refuses to download the source tarball, even though `wget` gets it without issues. When running a scratch build in

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #25 from Brandon Nielsen --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01565363-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #24 from Andy Mender --- > Some of the URLs have moved slightly (or were maybe wrong from the > beginning), those will be fixed in the next revision. I managed to find the latest sources here:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #23 from Brandon Nielsen --- Follow up, I've confused myself, and could use guidance. The documentation for packaging cross compilers[0] states "All cross-compilers should add --prefix=/usr/arch-os-libc to ./configure when

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #22 from Brandon Nielsen --- Some of the URLs have moved slightly (or were maybe wrong from the beginning), those will be fixed in the next revision. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to get it to stop installing things in

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #20 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/msp430-elf-toolchain.git/plain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec?id=a1b5d4b24db937c84945ddbeda43545e2ea6cc83 New

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Brandon Nielsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nielsenb@jetfuse. | |net)

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Brandon Nielsen has canceled Package Review 's request for Brandon Nielsen 's needinfo: Bug 1350884: Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #17 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/c1bb3dd343d496c17d7adf11c8df7b014d8cb12e/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #16 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #15) > So a couple things: > * the URL in the spec does not work anymore, > * the build fails due to missing debugsource files; this is probably

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #15 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- So a couple things: * the URL in the spec does not work anymore, * the build fails due to missing debugsource files; this is probably related to the debuginfo/debugsource split and not too

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #14 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #13) > For g++ subpackage, I'd check original gcc, maybe. Same for gnulib, > assuming it has also been bundling it. The illegal

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #13 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- For g++ subpackage, I'd check original gcc, maybe. Same for gnulib, assuming it has also been bundling it. The illegal package name has to do with including static

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #12 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/d0f1b3ccb1611c8adf5aacf0f63e2681d9d5/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Bit weird that it's version 5.0.0, but 6.2.1 of gcc (and presumably some other version of the other tools). Not sure what should be done about that. Minor things

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #10 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/91abb9d0f9654defd6c5538cf193b5ae3abd889f/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #9 from Brandon Nielsen --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #8) > Since the old packages still exist, would it be helpful to mark these as > Obsolete-ing the others? That's definitely a

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #7 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/02c17fe25211ee2243391d146649d2a9b40bb203/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #6 from Brandon Nielsen --- Did a few informal reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387927 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378095

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Till Maas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #3 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/3b5371a0a86ce831c5a97deca058f314f3f991e3/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL:

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Some quick drive-by comments: I think the package name should be at least msp430-gcc if not msp430-elf-gcc. If you insist on having gcc as a subpackage then maybe

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #1 from Brandon Nielsen --- This is my first package, so I am in need of a sponsor. As you can see by the fact this isn't in my Description, I have already screwed up this process, I apologize. This package

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Brandon Nielsen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841