From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 575 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 20:28:42 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 20:28:42 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BpC5R-0001zS-56 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:28:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 4991 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jul 2004 20:28:40 +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 1362 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 20:28:40 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:28:34 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <200407260651.09949.lv@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-58.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: What's up with the binutils (arch unstable) downgrade? X-Archives-Salt: 829b88f6-c3dc-4035-a64b-0b302445b751 X-Archives-Hash: a48bc6816204aa85f9d01fe26cae694e Travis Tilley posted <200407260651.09949.lv@gentoo.org>, excerpted below, on Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:51:09 -0400: > 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. Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I /did/ see some rather "interesting" warnings, compiling perl (rev-dep rebuild as suggested after a different update), in its test phase. Something about missing symbols for a couple of the tests. However, anybody that's running amd64 and actually watches the compiler output should be used to various rather fearsome looking warnings scrolling by, by now, and unless I have problems with the resulting binary or those warnings turn to errors, I've learned to ignore most of them. Nothing unusual with the latest 2.6.8-rc2 kernel.org kernel, however. And, as I said, my system is more stable now than it has ever been, so I'm not wanting to unnecessarily rock the boat! (I've alway been less stable that I expected, but part of it was memory timing issues, combined with SMP and the still relatively new AMD64 arch. Changed a BIOS setting and haven't crashed yet, with the 2.6.8-rc2 kernel, tho I was still experiencing occasional crashes on 2.7.0, both compiled with the in question binutils. Hopin' to KEEP it uncrashed!) (BTW, /thought/ I posted that to amd64, not devel, but oh, well.. ) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list