On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > I don't understand you, ... first you complain that the gtk package is too
> > old,
> > then you say it is because of a known egcs buug, and there is no solution
> > apart
>
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I don't understand you, ... first you complain that the gtk package is too
> old,
> then you say it is because of a known egcs buug, and there is no solution
> apart
> from no compiling the test program that cause problem, and then you said it is
> not
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 05:17:52PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, luther sven wrote:
>
> > i think in this case the correct thing to do is to fill a bug against this
> > package, did you do it ?
> > you state there that the package don't compile, because of so and s
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> OK, it's not schedule-insns2 then. Try a few others if you can find
> them in the docs.
yep, you were right. it's -O -fschedule-insns that causes the bug to
appear.
> 62 lines is great. But, can you grab the bare minimum of the necessary
> defi
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 01:17:39AM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> well, maybe you are right, but I found out that it is part of the problem.
> Removing it removed the bug. And as you can see I have chopped off 99% of
> the code. I could not remove anything more, because whatever I did fixe
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I suspect that alloca itself is not at fault. Anyway
well, maybe you are right, but I found out that it is part of the problem.
Removing it removed the bug. And as you can see I have chopped off 99% of
the code. I could not remove anything mor
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 11:23:40PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> This is indeed funny, because I got myself down to just that... bug
> tracking. Well, I may say I have been lucky, because I managed to pinpoint
> the offending function. Actually there was no bug in testglib.c itself,
> rat
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> And here we reach the really "fun" part. I would really appreciate if
> you could attempt to produce a test case. I think there is some
> information about doing this in the egcs-docs; what it boils down to is
> first isolating where in the source
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 05:17:52PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, luther sven wrote:
>
> > i think in this case the correct thing to do is to fill a bug against this
> > package, did you do it ?
> > you state there that the package don't compile, because of so and s
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, luther sven wrote:
> i think in this case the correct thing to do is to fill a bug against this
> package, did you do it ?
> you state there that the package don't compile, because of so and so,
> that they should apply the appended patch. and also for such important
> packa
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 12:24:58PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > i managed to download glib/gtk+ 1.1.12, and compiled it here on my sparc
> > station, but on my linux box at home, i tried to launch dbuild on it, and
> > was
> > gratified
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> i managed to download glib/gtk+ 1.1.12, and compiled it here on my sparc
> station, but on my linux box at home, i tried to launch dbuild on it, and was
> gratified with an internal compiler error, i had no time to go further into
> the
> problem, but i
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 01:01:38AM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 09:09 -0500 1999-01-13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Theoretically one is supposed to, but a lot don't. In fact, until my
> >life calms down a bit, I'm off of -devel.
>
> I am not aware of any requirement to subscribe to -devel, ev
At 09:09 -0500 1999-01-13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Theoretically one is supposed to, but a lot don't. In fact, until my
life calms down a bit, I'm off of -devel.
I am not aware of any requirement to subscribe to -devel, even though
I can keep up with it, I would not expect all or even most p
Ted Whalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> >
> > > No, but already working packages can be recompiled at new versions
> > > automatically.
> >
> > True.
>
> Is it possible for a failure of this auto-compile to automatically file
> a bug-report against the package t
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 09:55:57PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > > 2.91.58 is in the tree -- should be egcs-1.1.1 :-)
> >
> > Yes, that's rather what I thought. Comments?
>
> Pardon me, but 2.91.60 is 1.1.1, the one that is in the
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> > No, but already working packages can be recompiled at new versions
> > automatically.
>
> True.
Is it possible for a failure of this auto-compile to automatically file
a bug-report against the package that won't compile?
tew
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 2.91.58 is in the tree -- should be egcs-1.1.1 :-)
>
> Yes, that's rather what I thought. Comments?
Pardon me, but 2.91.60 is 1.1.1, the one that is in the tree is 1.1.1pre
right?
Konstantinos Margaritis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 02:13:59AM +0100, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > We already have porters. I started as one. You don't need a package
> > to register as a developer; you just need a way to help.
>
> 100% true!
>
> My first debian year i ported m68k packages -- without an own package.
>
> We already have porters. I started as one. You don't need a package
> to register as a developer; you just need a way to help.
100% true!
My first debian year i ported m68k packages -- without an own package.
> What are you doing to egcs 1.1.1, out of curiousity? And is there
> really no
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> Well, I built qt1.42 with full optimizations, and it works fine. Unless
> you're talking about the infamous text-selection bug that is still
> there...
That's what I meant. And it makes it pretty unusable IMHO. However, without
optimizations, it's gone. Now I'm h
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> On what machine and using what kernel did you have those problems? I
> downloaded the 1.1.1 release source, and it built w/o problems on my 603e
> Amiga.
well, it is a 603e based umax c500, with 2.1.131 kernel, but I downloaded
the debian
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> If there is a compiler error in compare, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
> If something is seriously wrong with egcs 1.1.1 on powerpc, I will not
> fix it. I'll upload a snapshot of pre-1.2 instead. Those are
> extroardinarily improved over our la
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 03:59:17PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > What are you doing to egcs 1.1.1, out of curiousity? And is there
> > > really no 1.1.1 in the archive yet for powerpc? If there
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 03:59:17PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > We already have porters. I started as one. You don't need a package
> > to register as a developer; you just need a way to help.
>
> well, then perhaps I have misund
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> We already have porters. I started as one. You don't need a package
> to register as a developer; you just need a way to help.
well, then perhaps I have misunderstood the prerequisites for being a
developer. If there are no objections then I will
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 03:36:14PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > We aren't many powerpc developers. Debian is currently in a critical state
> > for new patches - some maintainers decided to delay the upload to unstable.
>
> Just an id
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> We aren't many powerpc developers. Debian is currently in a critical state
> for new patches - some maintainers decided to delay the upload to unstable.
Just an idea... why don't introduce a 'porter'? That is, debian developers
probably have too much
> I don't intend to offend anyone, but I would rather see more frequent
> ports of packages for the ppc, which IMHO seems a little stale to me these
We aren't many powerpc developers. Debian is currently in a critical state
for new patches - some maintainers decided to delay the upload to unstable
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 04:38:18PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > You noticed there how much time is involved in being a developer. Add
> > that in to how few developers have powerpcs and how busy we are outside
> > of the project. I
On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> You noticed there how much time is involved in being a developer. Add
> that in to how few developers have powerpcs and how busy we are outside
> of the project. I'm not offended, but it's not going to make me more
> active, either. Also, the past
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:49:53PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>
> Seeing that we were stuck with ancient versions of glib and gtk for the
> powerpc, while other platforms were having binaries of the latest, I have
> created binaries of both glib 1.1.12 and gtk1.1.12 for the powerpc.
> S
Seeing that we were stuck with ancient versions of glib and gtk for the
powerpc, while other platforms were having binaries of the latest, I have
created binaries of both glib 1.1.12 and gtk1.1.12 for the powerpc.
Sure there was a problem with glib which prevented both packages from
appearing as b
33 matches
Mail list logo
