On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:01:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for
> > hurd-i386? Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd
> > like to file the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it
> > updated and need to know if I
Jeff Bailey writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Considering the "confusion" of having gcc272 as default C compiler
> > and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch
> > switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all
> > a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Considering the "confusion" of having gcc272 as default C compiler
> and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch
> switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all
> architectures at once, if that's
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:03:15PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Hmm. We've already switched to gcc-3.0 (and so far haven't built a
> gcc-2.95 - Our glibc doesn't contain the magic to make everything
> friendly between the two) for all the C stuff. I wasn't sure if since
> we had a clean slate (The
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Do you object if we declare gcc-3.1 to be our default compiler as
> > soon as you upload? I just read the archives of this list and it
> > looks like you folks are ready to go as soon as upstream releases.
> I assume Anthony wil
Jeff Bailey writes:
> `hurd-i386' has just completed an ABI bump. We've been very careful
> to keep back packages that depend on libstdc++, as I had heard that
> there's some compatability problems.
>
> Do you object if we declare gcc-3.1 to be our default compiler as soon
> as you upload? I jus
6 matches
Mail list logo
