On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 07:27:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 18:51]:
> > Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > > So, some ideas come to my mind:
> > > 1. delay glibc upload until glib transitioned to testing
> > > 2. do another upload with shlib bump after gli
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 18:51]:
> Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > So, some ideas come to my mind:
> > 1. delay glibc upload until glib transitioned to testing
> > 2. do another upload with shlib bump after glib transitioned to testing,
> > and wait with gcc to that upload.
> >
> >
Andreas Barth a écrit :
> * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 00:33]:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>> * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 21:15]:
We (glibc maintainers) plan to do a change in glibc first. We will drop
libc6-sparcv9 a
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 00:33]:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 21:15]:
> > > We (glibc maintainers) plan to do a change in glibc first. We will drop
> > > libc6-sparcv9 and change the optimizatio
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 21:15]:
> > Jurij Smakov a écrit :
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were des
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 21:15]:
> Jurij Smakov a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
> >>
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-
Jurij Smakov a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
>>
>> Does any port still need to stick wi
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
>
> Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> from
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:16 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > > Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> > > fr
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:25:58AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be
> > > b
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070720 12:49]:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be
> > > >
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:31:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > The change is done in unstable. Unstable have no security support.
> > > Should I assume you don't know how to properly build packages for a dist
> > > which is not unstable?
> > He might be referring to the fact that xulrunner
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be
> > > built
> > > before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they do
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be built
> > before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly yet,
> > and I am
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be built
> before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly yet,
> and I am (still) waiting for an upstream comment on how to fix it.
The change i
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/433629
> Yes, it's pretty odd, but recompiling the whole kernel tree with gcc 4.2
> causes my usbhid to totally not work.
The Debian linux kernels explicitely uses gcc-4.1.
Bastian
--
It is undignified for a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:16 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> > from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
> > objec
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:16 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
> objections against the transition.
I have objections :)
http://bugs.debian.org/433629
Yes, it's pr
The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
objections against the trans
19 matches
Mail list logo
