From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21837 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 10:50:59 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 10:50:59 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bp34M-0000lV-85 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:50:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 23737 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jul 2004 10:50:57 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10776 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 10:50:57 +0000 From: Travis Tilley Reply-To: lv@gentoo.org Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:51:09 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407260651.09949.lv@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] What's up with the binutils (arch unstable) downgrade? X-Archives-Salt: ef714937-0068-4531-85de-1d2d4b60df4e X-Archives-Hash: e62de1d82f679d1a0884a29de39cfc1f On Monday 26 July 2004 05:53 am, Duncan wrote: > I've kept my now arch keywordless binutils, pending a bit more info. > > One more line describing /why/ the testing failed, causing the keyword > revocation, would likely have been /incredibly/ helpful. it spews a frightening number of (non-fatal) warnings while compiling a kernel and i have one person who is getting a BFD internal error. I removed the ~amd64 keyword more because i dont trust it and to be cautious than anything else. 2.15.90.0.1.1-r3 should be pretty solid on amd64, this is the version in stable (and now the latest version available to ~amd64 users). if you have any problems with it, please feel free to beat me with a stick till it's fixed. ;) i do apologise for the less than helpful changelog entry. -- Travis Tilley -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list