On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:03:13 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> > preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
> > stabilization)?
> >
> > I have read hardmask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Hill schrieb:
>> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues
>> are preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
>> stabilization)?
>>
>> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's
>> masked fo
> "B" == Ben writes:
>> stabilizing Grub 2 ASAP is the sanest thing you can do, since even
>> though it's also beta software, it's at least maintained by upstream.
B> I would hesitate to say it's the *sanest* thing to do, but we should at
B> least get it into ~arch and make sure our documen
Alec Warner posted on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:38:53 -0800 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 Zac Medico wrote:
On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mo
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:36:03PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> My intent was not to suggest that we ditch grub1, but that grub2 would
> be stable and the 'default' assuming we (I?) can get it to work.
As one of the main Grub1 maintainers in Gentoo presently, I welcome this
course of action with the
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ben wrote:
> On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> [...] Given that Grub 1 is
>> both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and
>> unmaintained,
>
> Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version
> numbers
On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> [...] Given that Grub 1 is
> both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and
> unmaintained,
Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version
numbers can be *very* deceiving. And while grub-0.97 may "offic
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:26:38 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> > > > Pacho Ramos wrote
On 22/02/12 00:38, Alec Warner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is
causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for
stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or
l
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, 2
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
>> > > Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> > >
>
El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> > > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, wh
Hello,
Quoting Ryan Hill :
gcc is slotted. Is there any reason why we can't simply make grub depend
on a working slot of gcc and set CC appropriately in the ebuild?
We have no way of forcing an ebuild to be built with a particular version of
GCC. This is on purpose, and there are both technic
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:37:39 -0500
Richard Yao wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> I took a look at the problem cited in your bug report. I suggest
> compiling sys-boot/grub with CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb3", attaching gdb to
> grub-install and then watching what happens in the debugger. If you
> compare runs with a GCC
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a ne
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:30:40 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 19:03 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes
> > people's systems unbootable.
> >
> > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions.
> gcc is slot
> I took a look at the problem cited in your bug report. I suggest
> compiling sys-boot/grub with CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb3", attaching gdb to
> grub-install and then watching what happens in the debugger. If you
> compare runs with a GCC 4.5.3 built stage2 and a GCC 4.6.2 built
> stage2, you should be ab
Ryan,
I took a look at the problem cited in your bug report. I suggest
compiling sys-boot/grub with CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb3", attaching gdb to
grub-install and then watching what happens in the debugger. If you
compare runs with a GCC 4.5.3 built stage2 and a GCC 4.6.2 built
stage2, you should be able
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 19:03 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> > preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
> > stabilization)?
> >
> > I have read hardmask m
On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
>> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
>> stabilization)?
>>
>> I have read hardmask message but it sim
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
>> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
>> stabilization)?
>>
>> I have read hardmask message b
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
> stabilization)?
>
> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for
> testing purpose
22 matches
Mail list logo
