From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-15698-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 17267 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 19:12:20 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
  by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Sep 2004 19:12:20 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
	by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1C6wFP-0002cA-I8
	for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:12:19 +0000
Received: (qmail 9047 invoked by uid 89); 13 Sep 2004 19:12:18 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 20000 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 19:12:18 +0000
From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:12:08 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7
References: <4143476D.5070207@gentoo.org> <200409120208.25977.tcpdevil@linuxlover.org> <4143972A.2040204@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <4143972A.2040204@gentoo.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart3609424.7hLRAIVOuU";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200409132112.16961.pauldv@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86
X-Archives-Salt: 3ff58a11-2313-4b09-85e3-9dc17536029c
X-Archives-Hash: 75da0b748b57b3ce06245edacb1b484f

--nextPart3609424.7hLRAIVOuU
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sunday 12 September 2004 02:24, Robert Moss wrote:
> If you're bothered, check out OpenOffice 1.9.52. That builds fine. Don't
> forget, every GCC 3.x for new x hasn't compiled OpenOffice when it went
> to ~x86. 3.3 hit and 3.2 was needed. 3.2 hit and it didn't compile at
> all. 3.1 was pre-OOo I think. We're not doing anything out of the ordinar=
y.
>
> However, I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps a 1.9.52 OOo ebuild,
> package.mask'd and -* keyworded, should perhaps be committed for testing
> purposes. Any objections? If not, I'll make the tarball and ebuild - it
> works here but my ebuild is filthy. Also when 2.0 is released the 64-bit
> fixes will be merged too.

If you could post them on bugzilla (not the tarball of course, but a link)=
=20
that would be nice. Assign them to openoffice@gentoo.org

Paul

=2D-=20
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--nextPart3609424.7hLRAIVOuU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBRfEQbKx5DBjWFdsRAtCcAKCT7mQbxJmIRK7hTB6BK4U81XL4yACeLM0k
EdiJCnG4k4Upi1ugBtWmgTI=
=zDAZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3609424.7hLRAIVOuU--