Ian Wienand wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:58:32PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>If glibc in unstable doesn't require significant fixes to build with gcc-4.0, >>it really would be a good idea to backport the fix for this bug and the >>rpc/xdr.h one. > > > I started to try this but gave up quite quickly; the problem seems to > be more related to new versions of binutils than the newer gcc. I > forward ported about 5 changes before I gave up. > > The ucontext change is quite trivial ... see attached. I just applied > it straight to my sys/ucontext.h and I'm up and running :) If I built > libc in a stable chroot (i.e. the older toolchain) with this patch > would that help anyone? I wonder if it would be acceptable to upload packages built against a patched sys/ucontext.h.
>>If it does require significant fixes, perhaps you could suggest to the >>release team that ia64 be dropped from consideration for packages migrating >>to "testing". That's the only other way I can see to avoid tying most >>of the C++ transition to the glibc transition (which is clearly a bad idea). > > > It seems that the modern toolchain has left the old glibc versions too > far behind to bother with updating. Maybe having the glibc > transistion go hand in hand with the C++ transision is just something > we'll have to put up with. Yeah, I guess so. :-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
