On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:27:10PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > Now we forward the other way around ;-)
>
> I think it's time to submit some patches for WWW and [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;)
Please do! :)
--
Stephen R. Marenka
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> and another one.
I forwarded this one three days ago. ;-)
> - Forwarded message from Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
> UNPARSE
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Now we forward the other way around ;-)
I think it's time to submit some patches for WWW and [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;)
--
Ciao...//Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gp
and another one.
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.3
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:42:31 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
Now we forward the other way around ;-)
- Forwarded message from Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
FORGED_RCVD_HELO,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
autolearn=no version=3.1.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:24:19AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if it's a problem with the build (the same sources have
> > previously built successfully on m68k). I suspect a binutils
> > regression.
>
> What version of binutils were yo
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's a problem with the build (the same sources have
> previously built successfully on m68k). I suspect a binutils
> regression.
What version of binutils were you using? Assuming I can get hold of the
source package, can I unpack it
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:31:11PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> None at all from my end. If you've been able to build it, and there is a
> test suite, it should Just Work(tm).
Unbelieveable. gcc-4.1 configure fails for good reason.
$ ldd -r /usr/lib/libmpfr.so
| libgmp.so.3 => /usr/l
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:59:50AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:15:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:17:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > > Should I upload gmp or just use it to try to build the latest gcc-4.1?
> >
> > Perhaps
Finn Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> > > Hi!
>> > >
>> >> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for a rebuild of glibc a) with
>> > > current version and gcc-3.2
>>
>> > Is that combination known to work on any other arch's?
>>
>> I'm not sure i
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:15:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:17:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > I've successfully built gmp with -O0 and adding /usr/lib/libc.so to the
> > $libs in libtool to resolve the linker error. It passed all of its
> > self-tests, wh
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:17:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> I've successfully built gmp with -O0 and adding /usr/lib/libc.so to the
> $libs in libtool to resolve the linker error. It passed all of its
> self-tests, which seem extensive.
>
> Should I upload gmp or just use it to try to bui
12 matches
Mail list logo
