El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 > > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are > > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near > > >> stabilization)? > > >> > > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for > > >> testing purposes :-/ > > > > > > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes > > > people's systems unbootable. > > > > > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions. > > > > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they > > can't find a supported compiler. > > What's the state of 1.99? I know someone was working on it recently. We'd > also have to update the handbooks. I think it could be several months of > work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September. > >
As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or later anyway)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
