On Saturday 22 October 2005 03:11 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
> >>Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
> >>glad something is being done to fix this issue.
> >
> > you could
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say
'i686-pc-l
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
> Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
> glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say
'i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc' and 'i686-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to welcome the newest developer, Luca Longinotti. Luca
comes aboard to help out with webapps, apache, and php.
In his own words, "I'm Luca Longinotti, 16 yeards old, from Switzerland.
I'm still a student and actually study Physic
On Saturday 22 October 2005 16:02, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
> Things running autotools should be safe.
*If* autotools are new enough. Things like nfs-utils are not safe.
I fixed a couple of them when I was trying eselect compiler because of a bug
in it that caused me not to have gcc anymore.
>
On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 00:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
> we are already playing with doing this in the wrapper itself so that
> compilation is transparent
>
> i'd wager to say the majority of packages in portage run `gcc` and `g++`
> rather than ${CTARGET}-gcc
So far, only 10% if packages faile
Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Now, that I've got your attention. IMHO above should NOT fail - most of
the software in portage is already using ${HOST}-gcc instead and gcc
symlink is just a convenience.
But it does. In packages I will never suspect being nasty (qt, lynx) and
ones I would, but they s
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for dev
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for dev
