On 5/28/06, John Laremore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quit f
John, donate your computer to charity. This whole internet thing is
just not for you...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
e you arse holes.
>
>
> From: Bo ?rsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +
ted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by
> bay0-mc2-f10.
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:03, John Laremore wrote:
> quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
stop insulting people
stop sending html mail
Nobody is bombing you - why did you suscribe to this mailing list, if you
don't want emails from it?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
From: Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgTo: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgSubject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 ProblemsDate: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200MIME-Version: 1.0Received: from robin.gentoo.o
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>
>
>>Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>
Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
Why ask for problems w
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> >On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> >>Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
> >>Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
> >
> >I am using it becaue
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:25, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
> > > who created the digests used..
> >
> > what?
> >
> > I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might c
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
>
>
>>Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
>>sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
>>will be a good file.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that's what the digest ver
Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
> Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
> sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
> will be a good file.
Well, that's what the digest verification is for, right. It ensures that he
w
Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
> > who created the digests used..
>
> what?
>
> I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that
> this is why making a new digest may not be a
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
>>Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volu
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> >On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> >>Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> This change could be a
> bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:41, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
> > > likely.
> >
> > because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
>
> The digest still chan
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>
>
>>Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
>>
>>
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>>>more probably - the mirror
Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
> > likely.
>
> because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who
created the d
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > This change could be a
> > > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
> >
> > more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it
> > with a h
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > This change could be a
> > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>
> more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with
> a hacked package.
While that is possible I'm not really sure why you
On Sunday 28 May 2006 19:54, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
This change could be a
> bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a
hacked package.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:26 skrev Richard Fish:
> I just have to say that if upstream authors include a bug-fix without
> releasing a new version (and a differently named tarball), they need a
> good clubbing.
I agree with that. Still, apparently that is what happened here. It's stupid,
but since th
On 5/28/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this security measure. In this case the tar file changed without changing the
name after you originally installed the package (or after it was downloaded
to the mirror that you are using...). This change could be a bugfix. By
making your o
Sunday 28 May 2006 19:36 skrev Kristian Poul Herkild:
> It's not GCC-related, and it's not exactly the first time we've had to
> make our own digests ;)
You should never make your own digest of a package that you have not altered
(or downloaded to an overlay...) yourself. Proper procedure is:
1.
JimD wrote:
> Jason Weisberger wrote:
>> List,
>>
>> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
>> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
>> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
>> would be related to GCC, but the
Jason Weisberger wrote:
> List,
>
> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
> would be related to GCC, but then again:
>
> app-a
Saturday 27 May 2006 23:22 skrev Jason Weisberger:
> I will be going on vacation for about a week, and when I get back I'll
> try to do all this again, hell, maybe even from a fresh install. I
> hear the benefits are worth it.
What benefits?
--
Bo Andresen
pgpt3NNfGxdh5.pgp
Description: PGP s
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read a few things about 4.1.1 not playing well with GTK packages
on the forums, however, and that still appears to be the case. I'll
get exact error messages when I return and bring this thread up again.
Cool. Hopefully any problems
List,
I suppose that I just found it odd that it popped up after I switched
to GCC 4.1.1. Maybe coincidence. I'll delete all my digest files and
let them download again, because this is popping up on quite a few
packages. Maybe a bad mirror.
I will be going on vacation for about a week, and w
On 5/27/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so run ebuild blabla.ebuild digest
wow, that is hard...
Probably better to just delete the distfiles and let them be
downloaded again though...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but
On Saturday 27 May 2006 17:40, Jason Weisberger wrote:
> List,
>
> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
> would be related to G
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:40:06 +0400, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
app-admin/perl-cleaner
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only
happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched b
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jason Weisberger wrote:
>
> >I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> >right? WRONG.
>
> Yes, very much so. See my "Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?"
> thread.
Yea, since the soname was the same, I was under
Jason Weisberger wrote:
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG.
Yes, very much so. See my "Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?"
thread.
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to t
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but then again:
app-admin/perl-cleaner
x11-proto/xextproto
x
34 matches
Mail list logo
