On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:22:38PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Anyway the question is a bit different:
> There are "often" problem of various kind that regard the toolchain,
> varying from linkage, paths, environmental variables ...
> Everytime one of this happen users (and probably devs ;) h
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 11 April 2005 07:24 am, Francesco Riosa wrote:
gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `as': No such file or directory
run `binutils-config 1`
there's a bug open atm where portage doesnt seem to run pkg_postinst() for
some reason and thus when you upgrade you
On Monday 11 April 2005 07:24 am, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `as': No such file or directory
run `binutils-config 1`
there's a bug open atm where portage doesnt seem to run pkg_postinst() for
some reason and thus when you upgrade your binutils, the proper sym
Francesco Riosa wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:22 pm, Spider wrote:
the ~x86 version doesn't exhibit this problem, btw. stabilizing this
version might be prudent.
1.5.14 doesnt have any open issues for it so i've pushed it to stable
emerge -pv gcc
[ebuild U
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:22 pm, Spider wrote:
the ~x86 version doesn't exhibit this problem, btw. stabilizing this
version might be prudent.
1.5.14 doesnt have any open issues for it so i've pushed it to stable
emerge -pv gcc
[ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.5.
On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:22 pm, Spider wrote:
> the ~x86 version doesn't exhibit this problem, btw. stabilizing this
> version might be prudent.
1.5.14 doesnt have any open issues for it so i've pushed it to stable
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Should I *not* emerge this gcc? I usually hold off on gcc updates when
I'm in the middle of other testing. Right now, I'm doing a lot of beta
testing with R and Atlas, so I held off when the latest gcc showed up
after "emerge sync".
Spider wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinge
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:31 am, Spider wrote:
> > A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
>
> re-emerge libtool and it'll fix itself
Yep, I know that.
Unfortunately, thats -not- going to be a "solution" for the people who
On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:31 am, Spider wrote:
> A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
re-emerge libtool and it'll fix itself
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 22:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
> they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
>
> if not i'd like to move this to stable this weekend
> -mike
A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
B
On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1
sorry, ive been hacking on both the 3.3.5 and 3.4.3 snapshots lately and i
thought they were both made 20050110 ...
i am looking for 3.3.5.20050130-r1 to be tested for stable
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:35:19AM +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Uh, there isn't any such thing. If you mean this:
> Mon Mar 21 14:05:58 2005 >>> sys-devel/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1
> it's been stable on sparc for 2.5 weeks.
>
> Or did you mean this instead?
> gcc-3.4.3.20050110-r1
mike, I was te
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:46:35PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
> they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
it works nicely here. it compiles and can compile sed.
no bugs, no fun :(
--
stefan
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> One thing... Maybe its just me... or maybe they are in no way related,
> but I seem to have heard of a lot more 'libtool' problems when using a
> snapshot version instead of a regularly numbered version, is there a
> reason?
Maybe you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
Uh, there isn't any such thing. If you mean this:
Mon Mar 21 14:05:58 2005 >>> sys-devel/gcc-3.3.
One thing... Maybe its just me... or maybe they are in no way related,
but I seem to have heard of a lot more 'libtool' problems when using a
snapshot version instead of a regularly numbered version, is there a
reason?
On Apr 7, 2005 11:46 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can stable
can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
if not i'd like to move this to stable this weekend
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
17 matches
Mail list logo
