On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 14:51:43 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> > The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is
> > left to the Debian port maintainers.
> [...]
> > Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:48:39PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
> > architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters).
Please change the default for
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters).
GCC 4.8 seems fine on s390x, it can build a running Linux kernel. On
s390 something weird happened
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
>
> On 18-Jun-13, at 6:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>> This is true that they have recently contacted me through another email
>> address, but I haven't found time to work on that. Just stay tuned.
>
>
> That's great news
Hi Aurelien,
On 18-Jun-13, at 6:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
This is true that they have recently contacted me through another
email
address, but I haven't found time to work on that. Just stay tuned.
That's great news.
Helge and I have been working away as best we can to maintain the
po
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:12:30PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
> >> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debia
Am 15.06.2013 03:22, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
> GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
> desirable:
> - The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
> - A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on ia64 -
> when
> they are updated next ti
GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
desirable:
- The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
- A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on
ia64 - when they are updated next time after the transition. The
libc6.1 should (likely) de
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
>> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
>> get
>> any feedback from other port maintaine
Am Donnerstag, den 13.06.2013, 15:46 +0100 schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
> > architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
> > get
> > any feedback
Hi,
On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not get
> any feedback from other port maintainers, so unless this does change and port
> maintainers get invo
Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is
> left to the Debian port maintainers.
[...]
> Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of GCC can be
> found in the porting guide http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/port
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 01:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
[...]
> - I didn't upload linux-libc-dev myself, but until today I didn't
>see any announcement or a test rebuild done by the Debian kernel
>maintainers, so I did add the note about what I did see in multiple
>packages when doing
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:35:16PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > They weren't coordinated within the team. Furthermore I don't consider
> > that eglibc was ready to go to unstable, as it was known that two
> > architectures were
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> They weren't coordinated within the team. Furthermore I don't consider
> that eglibc was ready to go to unstable, as it was known that two
> architectures were going to FTBFS, without a real try to get that fixed
> (for example by
Hi,
On 07/05/13 14:25, Matthias Klose wrote:
> == (e)glibc 2.17 ==
>
> We had hoped that leaving
> it FTBFS in experimental for several months and gently pinging [...]
That was a bit unexpected, and I haven't seen it brought up on
debian-bsd@ until now.
> == GCC 4.8 ==
>
> It is planned to onl
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:39:25AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 07.05.2013 17:48, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
> >> GCC.
> >
> > What a wonderful coordina
Am 07.05.2013 17:48, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
>> GCC.
>
> What a wonderful coordination with the release team. Quoting the last
> mail from them on the mailing
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> Even if I have to admit I currently don't have a lot of time, it would
> have been nice to keep the other people in the team in the loop about
> such an upload.
You'd been fairly inactive of late, and I felt I'd take some initiat
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:03:58AM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > Even if I have to admit I currently don't have a lot of time, it would
> > have been nice to keep the other people in the team in the loop about
> > such an upload
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
> GCC.
What a wonderful coordination with the release team. Quoting the last
mail from them on the mailing list:
| As for Squeeze, we'd ask that you co-ordinate
21 matches
Mail list logo
