On 18-07-2008 09:36:53 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > H, bah!
> >
> > can you svn up and try again?
>
> Works as expected now :) thanks a lot
Sorry for the mess, though :(
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
--
gentoo-alt@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
> On 17-07-2008 18:07:19 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1"
> have been masked.
> > > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete
> your request:
> > > - sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1 (masked by: package.mask)
> > >
On 17-07-2008 18:07:19 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1" have been
> > masked.
> > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
> > request:
> > - sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1 (masked by: package.mask)
> > /opt/g
On 17-07-2008 17:47:59 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> Doesn't work:
>
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1" have been
> masked.
> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
> - sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r00.1 (masked by: package.mask)
> /opt/
>
> On 17-07-2008 10:20:41 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeeeha... it seems to work fine. I'll commit the gcc patch now, and
> the
> > > rest tomorrow? Or should I just commit everything? If things don't
> > > build anywhere, one would have to reinstall gcc. Should I rev-bump
> gcc?
> > >
On 17-07-2008 10:20:41 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > Yeeeha... it seems to work fine. I'll commit the gcc patch now, and the
> > rest tomorrow? Or should I just commit everything? If things don't
> > build anywhere, one would have to reinstall gcc. Should I rev-bump gcc?
> >
> > Cheers, Marku
>
> Yeeeha... it seems to work fine. I'll commit the gcc patch now, and the
> rest tomorrow? Or should I just commit everything? If things don't
> build anywhere, one would have to reinstall gcc. Should I rev-bump gcc?
>
> Cheers, Markus
>
After discussing this with haubi, i bumped the gcc revi
>
> On 16-07-2008 13:50:50 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm doing this with one of the prefixes targeting the setup CDs, so
> > > this should be pretty much the most essential stuff :) CFLAGS now
> > > should contain _ALL_SOURCE.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, it's gone pretty much through (allthough
On 16-07-2008 13:50:50 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > I'm doing this with one of the prefixes targeting the setup CDs, so
> > this should be pretty much the most essential stuff :) CFLAGS now
> > should contain _ALL_SOURCE.
> >
>
> Ok, it's gone pretty much through (allthough i stopped it pre
>
> I'm doing this with one of the prefixes targeting the setup CDs, so
> this should be pretty much the most essential stuff :) CFLAGS now
> should contain _ALL_SOURCE.
>
Ok, it's gone pretty much through (allthough i stopped it prematurely, since I
accidently activated the _ALL_SOURCE gcc pat
>
> On 15-07-2008 13:39:28 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > (-;
> > Basically: its her fault to use Windows.
> > But: she's clever and uses Gentoo Prefix.
> > ;-)
>
> (: Don't you love her madly? :)
q: i do ... :p
>
> > Compared to what Interopsystems provides (set -D_ALL_SOURCE in
> $C
On 15-07-2008 13:39:28 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> (-;
> Basically: its her fault to use Windows.
> But: she's clever and uses Gentoo Prefix.
> ;-)
(: Don't you love her madly? :)
> Compared to what Interopsystems provides (set -D_ALL_SOURCE in $CFLAGS
> shell variable at login), we sho
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:36 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-07-2008 07:55:16 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14-07-2008 16:05:53 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > > Haubi suggested this small enhancement:
> > > >
> > > > [[ " ${CFLAGS} " != *" -D_ALL_SOURCE "* ]] && ...
> > >
> >
On 15-07-2008 07:55:16 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > On 14-07-2008 16:05:53 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > Haubi suggested this small enhancement:
> > >
> > > [[ " ${CFLAGS} " != *" -D_ALL_SOURCE "* ]] && ...
> >
> > ok with me, smarter actually ;)
> >
>
> Hm. Thinking about it, i gues
>
> On 14-07-2008 16:05:53 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > Haubi suggested this small enhancement:
> >
> > [[ " ${CFLAGS} " != *" -D_ALL_SOURCE "* ]] && ...
>
> ok with me, smarter actually ;)
>
Hm. Thinking about it, i guess i like this one better than defining _ALL_SOURCE
inside gcc or the
On 14-07-2008 16:05:53 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> Haubi suggested this small enhancement:
>
> [[ " ${CFLAGS} " != *" -D_ALL_SOURCE "* ]] && ...
ok with me, smarter actually ;)
> Another thought from haubi:
>
> What if we just patch gcc to define _ALL_SOURCE as built-in. if we
> require it
>
> How about this patch?
>
> Index: profile.bashrc
> ===
> --- profile.bashrc (revision 27541)
> +++ profile.bashrc (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
> +# One basically always wants -D_ALL_SOURCE, it's some stupid
> restric
On 14-07-2008 15:33:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > Ok, I'll create the patch for the profile :)
> >
> > Just wanted to ask what's the state of the patch... Have you done anything
> > yet?
>
> Uhm, no I fail. Probably because I got stuck when Portage broke on
> Interix (well, it was alread
On 14-07-2008 15:16:39 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > On 02-07-2008 10:24:57 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > > I can do the compilation of system, but maybe that doesn't make
> > much
> > > > sense since you'll have to build the installers/binpkgs anyway?
> > >
> > > *sigh* :) okok... i'll do i
>
> On 02-07-2008 10:24:57 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > I can do the compilation of system, but maybe that doesn't make
> much
> > > sense since you'll have to build the installers/binpkgs anyway?
> >
> > *sigh* :) okok... i'll do it then. Where can I put the _ALL_SOURCE
> definition to?
>
> :
>
> >
> > On 02-07-2008 09:38:30 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > I can do the compilation of system, but maybe that doesn't make much
> > sense since you'll have to build the installers/binpkgs anyway?
> >
I'll be unavailable (vacation) the next week. If you want, you can activate
this, and g
>
> On 02-07-2008 09:38:30 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > What do you mean? I would just enable it, rebuild system (wait for
> +- 2
> > > days) if that's ok, commit it, and then remove all append-flags
> > > -D_ALL_SOURCE stuff. People having a prefix shouldn't notice that,
> > > should they?
On 02-07-2008 10:24:57 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > I can do the compilation of system, but maybe that doesn't make much
> > sense since you'll have to build the installers/binpkgs anyway?
>
> *sigh* :) okok... i'll do it then. Where can I put the _ALL_SOURCE definition
> to?
:)
Ok, I'll create
>
> On 02-07-2008 09:38:30 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > What do you mean? I would just enable it, rebuild system (wait for
> +- 2
> > > days) if that's ok, commit it, and then remove all append-flags
> > > -D_ALL_SOURCE stuff. People having a prefix shouldn't notice that,
> > > should they?
On 02-07-2008 09:38:30 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > What do you mean? I would just enable it, rebuild system (wait for +- 2
> > days) if that's ok, commit it, and then remove all append-flags
> > -D_ALL_SOURCE stuff. People having a prefix shouldn't notice that,
> > should they? New packages th
>
> On 02-07-2008 08:23:54 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I guess there where packages refusing to build with _ALL_SOURCE, but
> I can't think of a single one. After all it shouldn't be too much work
> to get those to build with _ALL_SOURCE then I think.
>
> The inverse (strip-flags -D_
On 02-07-2008 08:23:54 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > While compiling Mutt on Interix, I was confronted with flock +
> > constants
> > not being defined. Further inspection of the header file (manpage said
> > it should exist in fcntl.h) revealed the need for _ALL_SOURCE. Many
> > ebuilds jus
>
> While compiling Mutt on Interix, I was confronted with flock +
> constants
> not being defined. Further inspection of the header file (manpage said
> it should exist in fcntl.h) revealed the need for _ALL_SOURCE. Many
> ebuilds just include flag-o-matic to do append-flags -D_ALL_SOURCE on
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
