On Wednesday 08 November 2006 04:47, Steve Long wrote:
> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
> C++. Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of
> the Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different
> distros.)
>
> I'
On 11/8/06, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I was wondering about was what mechanism you might use to provide those
binary packages; would other devs also be contributing? Or is there simply
nothing that might be useful for a binary distro?
Wrt the Seeds project, it's too early to ha
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote:
> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
> C++. Is this such a problem for C?
i think you misread his e-mail
regardless, stable ABIs guarantee forward compatibility, not backwards
you're also not considering th
Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
>> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would
>> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags,
>> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different se
[I'm separating the ABI issue into the thread below from Marius Mauch]
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating
> systems, yes - systems that are running seeds. Whether they're
> provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all. We
> need to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote:
>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption
>
> Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything
>
I thought you were serious about being a great project.
> last i checked, it was the "server
