[gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 311 bytes --]

Hi

Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'.  Spider did not check
with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will
change that in a week or so if nothing major happens.


Thanks,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 551 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:33:50 +0200
Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'.  Spider did not check
> with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will
> change that in a week or so if nothing major happens.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
ooops , Since when I saw you checked in and said it was intended I
changed it back again.

//Spider




-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 23:47, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:33:50 +0200
> Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'.  Spider did not check
> > with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will
> > change that in a week or so if nothing major happens.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> ooops , Since when I saw you checked in and said it was intended I
> changed it back again.
> 

Its fine :)  Like I said, I'll try again in a week or so 8)


Thanks,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 08 September 2003 06:47, Spider wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'.  Spider did not check
> > with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will
> > change that in a week or so if nothing major happens.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> ooops , Since when I saw you checked in and said it was intended I
> changed it back again.

So, does this mean I should file a bug report for all the packages I've been 
unable to compile with gcc331 (if not listed already)? Some I've got patches 
for - file those too? Should I have done this already?

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 104 bytes --]

On Monday 08 September 2003 03:43, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Should I have done this already?

yes :)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 08 September 2003 17:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 08 September 2003 03:43, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Should I have done this already?
>
> yes :)

M'kay!

Actually, I didn't note the -r1 at first. I just synced and checked the 
Changelog and this version sounds like it will get a few of the packages I 
was having problems with to compile. So, what I'll do is go through 
everything I know didn't compile with gcc331, test it with gcc331-r1 and if 
it still doesn't work I'll file a bug. No use complaining about something 
that's already solved, right? ;-)

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Kumba]

Jason Stubbs wrote:

> So, does this mean I should file a bug report for all the packages I've been 
> unable to compile with gcc331 (if not listed already)? Some I've got patches 
> for - file those too? Should I have done this already?

Yeah, assign them to gcc-porting@gentoo.org.  I'm on that alias, 
although if any of the patches involves X applications, I won't be of 
much help (don't run X, so can't easily test them).


--Kumba

-- 
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: 
small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are 
elsewhere."  --Elrond


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Bug Reports

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 08 September 2003 17:18, Kumba wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > So, does this mean I should file a bug report for all the packages I've
> > been unable to compile with gcc331 (if not listed already)? Some I've got
> > patches for - file those too? Should I have done this already?
>
> Yeah, assign them to gcc-porting@gentoo.org.  I'm on that alias,
> although if any of the patches involves X applications, I won't be of
> much help (don't run X, so can't easily test them).

Almost all packages work now. The only two that didn't are gnomemm (already 
filed - FIXLATER) and arson (simple fix). I haven't tested openoffice yet - 
will do tonight.

I read through the bug-posting guidelines before posting and have a few things 
I'd like to clarify, though.

1) Unless the bug is obviously high or low priority, is it fine to leave it at 
P2?

2) If an existing bug report touches on another bug that hasn't been solved 
but the report is marked as fixed, should a new one be filed for the other 
bug? See #28227.

3) It is my understanding that all bugs should be submitted to bugs.gentoo.org 
and they will be pushed upstream if necessary. Is this correct?

4) Somebody's signature in the forums is "feature requests are bugs..." Is 
this in relation to Gentoo-specific things (portage, livecds, etc.) or does 
it include upstream packages too?

I'm always hesitant to report bugs as I don't want to waste anybody's time. 
Perhaps, after a few more bug reports I'll become more confident that I'm 
doing something useful...

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[George Shapovalov]

Well, not directly related to this issue, but related to gcc. So I'll reply to 
this thread in the hope of catching attention of all parties touching gcc 
ebuilds.

Please, do not add "ada" to gcc_lang definition in ebuilds, as per #25178!
This is getting rediculous - the moment I clean-up ebuilds I see "ada" popping 
in in a newer version :).
Having "ada" supplied will not add ada support to gcc. That involves quite a 
bit more: an ada-enabled bootstrap compiler (this is why this does not make 
any difference to majority of users) of a very specific version and certain 
additional procedure (this is why gcc build fails on users who have gnat 
installed). Even if time i taken to "fix" gcc ebuilds to support the supplied 
ada, this will yield only alpha-quality implementation, - quite undesirable 
for this language.

Please note, we now have ada supported separately from the main gcc tree. 
Please check out dev-lang/gnat for stable 3.14/3.15 version (gcc-2.8.2 based) 
and late cvs-snapshot of gnat-5.0 (gcc-3.2 based, package-masked atm). These 
use the code directly from the ACT (gnat developers) and this stuff does not 
interfere with gcc installations in a slightest - so you can have completely 
stable versions of both ;).

George

On Sunday 07 September 2003 13:33, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'.  Spider did not check
> with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will
> change that in a week or so if nothing major happens.
>
>
> Thanks,



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-3.3.1-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 00:50, George Shapovalov wrote:
> Well, not directly related to this issue, but related to gcc. So I'll reply to 
> this thread in the hope of catching attention of all parties touching gcc 
> ebuilds.
> 
> Please, do not add "ada" to gcc_lang definition in ebuilds, as per #25178!
> This is getting rediculous - the moment I clean-up ebuilds I see "ada" popping 
> in in a newer version :).

[ bla blah bla blah ]

:)

Sorry, forgot, and I am pretty sure whoever did not fix it for gcc-3.3.1
back then (and the bigger reason why I missed it).

Anyhow, thanks for catching it!


Thanks,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]