* Gerhard Tonn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
> One showstopper for 3.1 on s390 in Debian is currently the binutils version
> as I figured out recently. Every binutils version greater than 2.11.92.0.12.3
> used together with 3.1 produces broke
Matthew Woodcraft writes:
> > Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1?
>
> According to www.gnat.com, ACT are currently shipping GNATpro 3.15.
> This is surely a different version to what will ship with gcc 3.1 (in
> fact, I think it's still based on gcc 2.8), so I think gnat-3.15 would
> be co
> Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1?
According to www.gnat.com, ACT are currently shipping GNATpro 3.15.
This is surely a different version to what will ship with gcc 3.1 (in
fact, I think it's still based on gcc 2.8), so I think gnat-3.15 would
be confusing.
-M-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote:
| Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's do that when I become available again (in 7 weeks).
| > Or gcc-gnat-3.1? If everything gets OK, no
| > problem for moving to your package.
|
| Then again, why not gnat-3.15? O
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:26:05 +0200
From: Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:21, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17,
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
> What about woody? s390 wants to have it for woody, correct?
Yes, that would be great, but probably unrealistic. I am currently adapting
the java patch for s390, since it's still not upstream available and your
package doesn't work withou
Samuel Tardieu writes:
> | - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all?
>
> Sure.
Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or
> | should it be gnat-3.1?
>
> Mmm, at least un
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> | - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha.
> | Anyone else for other architectures?
>
> Cross compilation needed, not difficult, only tedious.
Is there a recipe somewhere for bringing up GNAT using a cross compiler?
I'
On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote:
| Ada:
|
| - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all?
Sure.
| - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or
| should it be gnat-3.1?
Mmm, at least until we are sure that this version of GNAT is as stable as
the previous one,
New packages, based on 020406 can be found at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc
- Ada packaging done (see below, asking Samuel for feedback)
- Arm patches re-added
What about woody? s390 wants to have it for woody, correct? Not sure
about the other architectures. On i386, I have gcc-3.1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 00:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > - arm: missing(?) arm-patches
> >
> > I sent the two patches we had in 3.0 to the gcc mailing lists. Maybe
> > there's still a chance that they might be includ
12 matches
Mail list logo
