Re: gcc-3.0 transition

2001-03-27 Thread Ben Collins
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:56:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > > Matthias Klose writes... > > > Matt Taggart writes: > > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice > > > > to get as many packages as possib

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

2001-03-27 Thread Anthony Towns
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > Matthias Klose writes... > > Matt Taggart writes: > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice > > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us > > > working on the hppa port will certain

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

2001-03-27 Thread Matt Taggart
Matthias Klose writes... > Matt Taggart writes: > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this. > > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I di

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

2001-03-26 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Matt Taggart wrote: > Since we're using gcc-3.0 for the hppa port I've been running into some > packages that break with the new compilers. Since hppa is a young port and > still has some problems I'm often not sure if it's an hppa problem or a > gcc-3.0 problem. Even if I