On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:08:43 -0500
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 10:21 Sun 09 Oct , Michał Górny wrote:
> > We're calling it with '--patch-only' to avoid heavy changes to
> > ebuilds. This should handle gracefully eautoreconfed packages and
> > those not using libtool as well (in worst case, it
Il giorno dom, 09/10/2011 alle 12.35 -0400, James Cloos ha scritto:
>
>
> Ie, ln(1) cannot find some of the symbols it needs if the .so was
> compiled with 4.5 and the .o files with 4.6.
>
> Which looks like an ABI issue, yes?
Not really. GCC, like most other libraries, only supports
forward-co
On 10/10/11 4:45 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Not really. GCC, like most other libraries, only supports
> forward-compatibility. Which means that you can use code built against
> 4.5 when using 4.6.
I'm not sure about that. It might be a bit speculative, but I think I
remember problems with tha
On 09:55 Mon 10 Oct , Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:08:43 -0500
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 10:21 Sun 09 Oct , Michał Górny wrote:
> > > We're calling it with '--patch-only' to avoid heavy changes to
> > > ebuilds. This should handle gracefully eautoreconfed packages and
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:10:49 -0500
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 09:55 Mon 10 Oct , Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:08:43 -0500
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 10:21 Sun 09 Oct , Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > We're calling it with '--patch-only' to avoid heavy changes to
>
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:33:07 +
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> There is some FUD regarding GCC upgrades and I don't have the proper
> knowledge to write a correct document on GCC upgrades. As you are currently
> aware, we have a GCC upgrade guide [1], but it has seen its last update in
>
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:41:15 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 10/08/11 22:45, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
> your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
> cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this
> "attack" either.
Then
Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:21:51 -0600 as excerpted:
> There are some packages that all need to be built with the same version
> of GCC. The whole qt-* family is an example, or at least it was a year
> ago (I'm not using KDE any more). Luckily they tend to be bumped as a
> unit.
>
>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 03:27:04 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> The problem generally occurs when I decided I've waited long enough for a
> long released upstream gcc (4.x.1 and often 4.x.2 are released already!)
> to get unmasked even to ~arch. Of course, having been thru this
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
>> your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
>> cookies for the time I've put into
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in portage tree.
Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start
masking other people's packages?
В Втр, 13/09/2011 в 11:53 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> Il giorno mar, 13/09/2011 alle 10.28 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
> > In that case blocking just old versions is wrong, since if your
> > installed version is broken and you try to reinstall, you'll need to
> > uninstall first too.
В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
> excerpted:
>
> > Duncan schrieb:
> >> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day
> >> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes s
Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:13:15 -0600 as excerpted:
> I try to overcome that obstacle with the gcc-porting overlay. I try to
> stick all the patches that haven't been applied to the main tree in
> there. (try being the key word - I really dropped the ball this release
> cycle as I w
Peter Volkov posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:38:43 +0400 as excerpted:
>> You are correct, but AFAIK, that's one function of tree-cleaners
>> (whether or not the remover is actually on the tree-cleaner team), when
>> packages are broken due to going stale against current, and the bugs
>> reporting t
16 matches
Mail list logo
