On 10/05/2017 03:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe it's best if this thread is allowed to die.
Yes, thank you. :-)
-Sandra
On 5 October 2017 at 22:11, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 02:16 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
>> I find it hard to care about someone's position or affiliation but
>> instead choose to care about what they do and how they act. If it was
>> Sandra's intent to ask me for free work, then I am not sure
On 10/05/2017 02:16 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
I find it hard to care about someone's position or affiliation but
instead choose to care about what they do and how they act. If it was
Sandra's intent to ask me for free work, then I am not sure how that
qualifies as "the right thing." Per my latest respon
toolchain problems? If you really want to learn , try
linuxfromscratch.org
and
http://trac.clfs.org/
Cross linux from scratch
You complained about too much documentation, and here's some more.
I apologize for the series of emails, but having stitched many
responses together before, the series is easier.
This is a response to the conversation started by noloader. I
appreciate the empathy he had for my question, as that is what led me
to ask it (I have also had the exact same issues tryin
On 05/10/17 22:16, R0b0t1 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
R0b0t1, you might not realise this but CodeSoucery is a major
contributor to gcc and other gnu tools. Individuals and companies pay
them for their services - to put together tested, qualified and
documented
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 October 2017 at 22:27, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> I decline to do your company's market research for them. They could choose
>> to pay me, of course. Based on the failures I am experiencing I doubt that
>> your company has gotten the build proces
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> R0b0t1, you might not realise this but CodeSoucery is a major
> contributor to gcc and other gnu tools. Individuals and companies pay
> them for their services - to put together tested, qualified and
> documented bundles of development tools,
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 03:27 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
>> mailto:san...@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> FAOD, R0b0t1 forwarded mail I deliberately sent off-list back to the list.
> I do know
On 4 Oct 2017 8:01 pm, "Nathan Sidwell" wrote:
On 10/04/2017 02:10 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Incidentally, I don't understand why there is no "Professional Support"
> page where we can direct people to find professional support. It could
>
My recollection is that the FSF explicitly prohibi
On 10/04/2017 02:10 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Incidentally, I don't understand why there is no "Professional Support"
page where we can direct people to find professional support. It could
My recollection is that the FSF explicitly prohibit this.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 04/10/17 00:22, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 10/03/2017 03:27 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
mailto:san...@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
[snip]
FAOD, R0b0t1 forwarded mail I deliberately sent off-list back to the list. I
do know that business solicitations a
On 4 October 2017 at 17:45, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For completeness, GCC has a wiki. But I still don't have an account to
make an occasional update; and I still don't know how to get an
account. I tried to get one in the past but the process was broken so
I gave up.
>>>
>>> 1) cr
>>> For completeness, GCC has a wiki. But I still don't have an account to
>>> make an occasional update; and I still don't know how to get an
>>> account. I tried to get one in the past but the process was broken so
>>> I gave up.
>>
>> 1) create an account
>> 2) get your username added to the rig
On 4 October 2017 at 17:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 4 October 2017 at 17:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> Maybe some of the first steps is to (1) recognize the information
>> management problem, and (2) provide information dissemination that's
>> {amicable|consistent|?} with what's occurring in 201
On 4 October 2017 at 17:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Maybe some of the first steps is to (1) recognize the information
> management problem, and (2) provide information dissemination that's
> {amicable|consistent|?} with what's occurring in 2017. I mean,
What does that mean in concrete terms?
> RE
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Of the thousands of hits when searching for the information on a task
> like compiling GCC, there's probably a handful of good sources.
> Everything else is just crap on the web that someone decided to blog
> about. (This is speaking from experience).
T
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> There are over 25000 words of GCC installation documentation in
> install.texi, and that's not even including e.g. libstdc++ configure
> options documented elsewhere. Other toolchain components also have such
> documentation.
>
> It's true th
There are over 25000 words of GCC installation documentation in
install.texi, and that's not even including e.g. libstdc++ configure
options documented elsewhere. Other toolchain components also have such
documentation.
It's true that, as a consequence of the toolchain being made up of
multip
On 10/04/2017 06:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 October 2017 at 22:27, R0b0t1 wrote:
I decline to do your company's market research for them. They could choose
to pay me, of course. Based on the failures I am experiencing I doubt that
your company has gotten the build process entirely correc
On 3 October 2017 at 22:27, R0b0t1 wrote:
> I decline to do your company's market research for them. They could choose
> to pay me, of course. Based on the failures I am experiencing I doubt that
> your company has gotten the build process entirely correct.
Given that you apparently only recently
On 03/10/17 23:27, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>> On 09/26/2017 03:05 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>> Is there anything else I should be aware of?
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are companies (like, ahem, the one I work for --
>> CodeSourcery/Mentor/Siemens) who provide c
On 10/03/2017 03:27 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
mailto:san...@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
[snip]
FAOD, R0b0t1 forwarded mail I deliberately sent off-list back to the
list. I do know that business solicitations are frowned upon on the
mailing lists. :-(
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 09/26/2017 03:05 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I
>> can almost always produce toolchains which function but I can find
>> programs or scripts which do more or less
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 September 2017 at 05:49, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote:
Hello,
I am having problems understanding the build instructions
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 September 2017 at 05:49, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote:
Hello,
I am having problems understanding the build instructions
On 27 September 2017 at 05:49, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I
>>> can almost always produce toolchains which functio
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I
>> can almost always produce toolchains which function but I can find
>> programs or scripts which do more or
On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I
> can almost always produce toolchains which function but I can find
> programs or scripts which do more or less the same thing that produce
> nonfunctional toolchains or
29 matches
Mail list logo
