On 31/8/2005 9:18:53, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Keep in mind that the *stable* trees of x86 and amd64 are actually
> pretty close to the same versions anyway, I just ran gmsoft's imlate
> script for amd64 vs. x86 keywords:
hmm; missed a biggie - sys-devel/gcc which is stabl
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:43:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Is it possible for me to mantain the packages?
>
> We don't (or at least shouldn't...) give out CVS to people just for a
> few ebuilds. If you contribute a lot of high quality stuff then
> someone may offer to mento
Thanks to the 148 people who voted. I think that's slightly less than a
50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
The new Gentoo Council is:
seemant
vapier
agriffis
solar
azarah
Swift
Koon
The master ballot is attached, and confirmation e-mails to those who
voted will follow shortly.
-g2boo
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 07:09 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks to the 148 people who voted. I think that's slightly less than a
> 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
>
> The new Gentoo Council is:
>
> seemant
> vapier
> agriffis
> solar
> azarah
> Swift
> Koon
As your friendly elect
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks to the 148 people who voted. I think that's slightly less than a
> 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
>
> The new Gentoo Council is:
>
> seemant
> vapier
> agriffis
> solar
> azarah
> Swift
> Koon
As one of the election officials, I confirm that the abov
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:20:03 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Thanks to the 148 people who voted. I think that's slightly less
| than a 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
Since we all know fine well that no-one understands the condorcet
voting system... Here're the pretty
Dear all,
First, congratulations! Now get to work! *Grin*
We needed to have the new metastructure plan someplace easy to find, so
I created glep 39 for it. It's probably worth re-reading, just to make
sure you know what's now on your plate. The big item is that there
needs to be a public mee
The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative. Of
course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
or rejecting GL
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 11:50:56AM CDT]
> We needed to have the new metastructure plan someplace easy to find, so
> I created glep 39 for it.
It's in CVS, but it may be a bit before it shows up on www.g.o.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
Grant Goodyear wrote:
The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative. Of
course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in a
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
combining x86 and amd64?
I'm not sure if it's really worth writing another GLEP for an april's fool...
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD6
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:10, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
> or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
> combining x86 and amd64?
I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine
Simon Stelling wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
combining x86 and amd64?
I'm not sure if it's really worth writing another GLEP for an april's
fool...
Gn
Using a single keyword would make us unable to mark for example helixplayer
(source) x86 and -amd64 at the same time (as it's now).
So package.mask it in the (now hypothetical) amd64 sub-profile, and it
is fixed.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine x86 with
anything else that's not 100% source and binary compatible with itself...
The reason is actually simple: x86 is, or at least was, the reference
architecture for almost all programmers.
Witih amd64 becoming so widespr
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:23:38 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine
| x86 with anything else that's not 100% source and binary compatible
| with itself...
Untrue.
| Using a single keyword would make us un
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Using a single keyword would make us unable to mark for example
helixplayer (source) x86 and -amd64 at the same time (as it's now).
So package.mask it in the (now hypothetical) amd64 sub-profile, and it
is fixed.
That's exactly why i don't like the idea of merging k
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:39, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Witih amd64 becoming so widespread, this will change.
You think it's a thing that changes in 2 days?
> Doesn't the amd64 team have a set of 32-bit compat libs just to run
> binary packages? When running 32-bit code, isn't amd64 basic
On Thursday 01 September 2005 01:39 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > There are too many packages that works *just* on x86, both at source and
> > binary level.
>
> Doesn't the amd64 team have a set of 32-bit compat libs just to run
> binary packages? When running 32-bit code, isn't amd64 basically
Simon Stelling wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Using a single keyword would make us unable to mark for example
helixplayer (source) x86 and -amd64 at the same time (as it's now).
So package.mask it in the (now hypothetical) amd64 sub-profile, and it
is fixed.
That's exactly why i don't
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Untrue.
Can I have reasoning?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)
pgpya7GNP4rpl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 01 September 2005 01:39 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine x86
> > with anything else that's not 100% source and binary compatible with
> > itself... The reason is actually simple: x86 is, or at least was, the
> > refer
Also, you can't compare sparc32/sparc64 to x86/amd64: sparc64 is just a
64bit kernel with a 32bit userland.
Oh yeah, I forgot, sparc32 uses a different userland than sparc64 in
Gentoo. Shall I stop shooting holes in this type of argument now? :)
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:42:46 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, you can't compare sparc32/sparc64 to x86/amd64: sparc64 is just
> a 64bit kernel with a 32bit userland.
However, that can't be said of mips, where one keyword covers 32- and
64-bit kernels with three different u
yes, assuming user wants that ... not everyone wants multilib crap on their
machine ... i know i'd prefer to have a 100% non-multilib system if i could
get away with it
Then that is fine, as you would never be affected by binary packages,
and they would be profile masked for you.
-Steve
--
g
What structure are you thinking about for the 'real' x86 arch?
would there be a meta-x86 and then two sub-archs?
ie.
--real_x86--+--x86--~x86
+--amd64--~amd64
where {real_x86}={x86}INTERSECT{amd64}.. ?
Lares
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> The recent discu
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
The reason is actually simple: x86 is, or at least was, the reference
architecture for almost all programmers.
Witih amd64 becoming so widespread, this will change.
That's why I have another proposal: Let's merge x86 and amd64 keywords in about
10 years, when x86 di
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
That's exactly why i don't like the idea of merging keywords: You
loose the ~arch state.
We weren't talking about ~arch, we were talking about -arch.
I'm talking about ~arch. And it's a fact that ~arch would get lost, so the
scenario i mentioned isn't covered.
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 13:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 01:39 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > > There are too many packages that works *just* on x86, both at source and
> > > binary level.
> >
> > Doesn't the amd64 team have a set of 32-bit compat libs just to run
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Untrue.
|
| Can I have reasoning?
Take a look at how sparc and mips currently handle packages which will
run on some CPU kinds or ABIs but not
On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Take a look at how sparc and mips currently handle packages which will
> run on some CPU kinds or ABIs but not others.
xine-lib, was not compiling on sparc32 (as there's a bug open), wasn't working
on sparc64 (sigbus) until 1.1.0... all
Andrew Gaffney wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 12:20:00PM CDT]
>
> Are you volunteering? :P
>
Absolutely not! I think it's an interesting discussion, and from what I
understand about the implementation I am inclined to favor it, but I'm
far from an expert (which is true for almost all of our devs, by
Personally, I'd love to know what this proposed chunk of work and
conflict is going to gain us...
Seen a fair amount of "you should", but no "and this is why". Without
the latter, not seeing any reason we should collapse the two biggest
arches into one (qa fun during it), considering the workl
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 13:39 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine x86
> > with
> > anything else that's not 100% source and binary compatible with itself...
> > The reason is actually simple: x86 is, or at least was, the referenc
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:11:09 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Take a look at how sparc and mips currently handle packages which
| > will run on some CPU kinds or ABIs but not others.
| xine-lib, was not com
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Untrue.
> |
> | Can I have reasoning?
>
> Take a look at how sparc and mips c
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:10:28 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and
| combining the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and
| provocative. Of course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP
| system was meant for. Now
Ciaran McCreesh gentoo.org> writes:
> Now, there's a slight problem. If you have TERM=shinynewterm, and
> you ssh to a box with an old terminfo database, you'll get a warning
> or error that your terminal isn't recognised when you try to use an
> ncurses-based application. You can either ask the
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:36:44 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
| change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
The people who have worked with such a system before and understand how
it works and what all it can do
On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ideally they wouldn't be keyworded at all.
I live in a real world, not an ideal one.
> More users means more QA feedback. This means x86/amd64 will have an
> *easier* job.
SNR, this unknown value that's so much important in communicatio
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:46:46 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Ideally they wouldn't be keyworded at all.
| I live in a real world, not an ideal one.
|
| > More users means more QA feedback. This means x86/
Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
users or developers?
If you haven't figured out the reason we are pushing for this sort of
thing yet, it i
On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The people who have worked with such a system before and understand how
> it works and what all it can do want change. Those who don't understand
> the system and think that it has all kinds of problems that are really
> just a lack of u
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 01:41:22PM CDT]
> Won't work. Too many people who don't have a clue what's being proposed
> and who don't understand the explanations.
Okay, with that statement, and an inability to find anybody else who
really wants to write such a GLEP, I'm certainly will
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
> the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative. Of
> course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
> Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be activ
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:59:01 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So to be frank, I propose that either the alt-arch devs start
| explaining above instead of half-assed answers and senseless ranting,
| or shut up. From the amount of _usefull_ comments they have given, it
| does not l
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:36 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | > Untrue.
> >
On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:54, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Well, merging the "two" arches will help solve
> this problem.
I read this as "as nobody wants to take care of x86, and we can't blame anyone
because there's no one to blame, let make amd64 arch team the one to blame",
as we don't ha
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 19:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:36:44 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
> | change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
>
> The people who have worked with su
On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Note the 'ratio' part. It isn't affected by a change in the number of
> users.
sparc users = few, but most of them are literate
x86 users = a lot, most of the illiterate, ricer, ranting users..
the ratio means that we have more eyes, bu
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:54:15 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The people who have worked with such a system before and understand
| > how it works and what all it can do want change. Those who don't
| > und
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:46:46 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Ideally they wouldn't be keyworded at all.
> | I live in a real world, not an
On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:00, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Possible, but once again, why will a merge give 'better' QA ?
Because you start over. You have to DO actually the QA that's missing on x86.
That's true but... WHO will do that?
The new "merged" arch team... but let my math skills try to
On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Hence the GLEP proposal. Unfortunately, too many ignorant people are
> jumping in and spewing out nonsense about things they don't understand
> before the GLEP's even written...
There was one, wasn't it? And I think I answered to that wi
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
users or developers?
Well, I guess the theory might be because then you only have one keyword
and one base profile to manage - I think.
Having just one keyword won't decrease our (our as in amd6
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:54 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
> > change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
> >
> > I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
> > users or developers?
>
> If yo
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:19:31 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Hence the GLEP proposal. Unfortunately, too many ignorant people are
| > jumping in and spewing out nonsense about things they don't
| > underst
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 21:14 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> x86 users = a lot, most of the illiterate, ricer, ranting users..
I thought that was amd64? :P
Anyway, here's what *I* propose. I propose that we all just shut up and
ignore this. It's obvious that there's not going to be an
Hi,
Theres a bug filed against gentoo-sources-2.6 which causes the system to be
unreliable when running the 64GB highmem option. This bug isn't present in the
vanilla kernels so it must be caused by one of the patches we apply, but I
don't know which this might be.
To see this bug, you need
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 21:17 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> The new "merged" arch team... but let my math skills try to solve this
>
> a + b = c
>
> x86 arch team + amd64 arch team = combined arch team
>
> 0 + b = b
>
> x86 arch team = 0
>
> and this means that AMD64 arch team will h
On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I thought that was amd64?
Well.. it actually is both :)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)
pgpmVuQ8MulH5.pgp
Description: PGP signatu
On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | There was one, wasn't it? And I think I answered to that with some
> | points. I have explained my reasons for not doing so today.
> No, there was an April Fool's joke.
Have to look down to the irc logs to find you said you were seriou
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, there was an April Fool's joke.
Which pretty good shows how ridiculous such a merge would be...
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 1/9/2005 20:54:14, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
> > change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
> >
> > I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
> > users or developers?
>
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:42:09 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > No, there was an April Fool's joke.
|
| Which pretty good shows how ridiculous such a merge would be...
Not at all. It showed just how many silly knee-jerk reactions such a
proposal would get
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 21:14 +0100, Ian Leitch wrote:
> I think myself and tester are the only members who can be considered
> active at the moment. I'm happy with creating an arch team, though I
> don't think we'll end up with an abundance of members (x86 is far from
> the most popular arch amon
I think myself and tester are the only members who can be considered
active at the moment. I'm happy with creating an arch team, though I
don't think we'll end up with an abundance of members (x86 is far from
the most popular arch among devs).
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So would just making an x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Mike,
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
| yes, assuming user wants that ... not everyone wants multilib crap on
their
| machine ... i know i'd prefer to have a 100% non-multilib system if i
could
| get away with it
You can, we have the 'no-multilib' subprof
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
| On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:10:28 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| | The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and
| | combining the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and
| | provocativ
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 15:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So would just making an x86 arch team. It would also be much less of a
> problem than merging x86 and amd64. How about this? I proclaim and x86
> arch team now exists. It already has a security liason.
>
> $ cat /var/mail/alias/arch/
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
> the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative. Of
> course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
> Now that we have a new
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
users or developers?
If you haven't figured out the reason we are pushing for this
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:05 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
> release maintainer (chris, is that you?), the grub/lilo maintainers,
Currently, yes.
I'll add myself to the alias.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Descrip
OK, so forming an arch team for x86 seems to have won out over merging
with amd64 (for the time being anyway), so lets get things underway.
I have created bug #104525 for interested devs to add their names to
(please CC also).
Interested users may also show interest, I think tester and hparke
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:11 +0100, Ian Leitch wrote:
> Interested users may also show interest, I think tester and hparker
> are
> interested in possibly recruiting a few able fellows.
I'd be more then happy to help get some ATs going to assist the devs..
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Ar
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Notice that for almost
> everything, amd64 is barely behind x86...just a minor version
> number/revision or two at most.
That's the ATs hard at work keeping us current ;)
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Le
Daniel Drake wrote:
To see this bug, you need to have _some_ highmem in the system (this
means >= 1GB total physical RAM), be running on x86 (other arches dont
have HIGHMEM option), and have the 64GB high memory support option
enabled. (4gb is fine, as is lowmem)
I currently have 1GB of RAM w
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:10, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
> the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative.
aha? Not in the list, is it?
> Of course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was me
Christian Parpart wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 05:45:43PM CDT]
> This just leads me to assume you're not really a coder (wrt native
> programming languages like C/C++), are you?
*Grin* This sort of condescending attitude is rarely wise when it comes
to dealing with Gentoo devs. Not only does it tend
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:05 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 15:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > So would just making an x86 arch team. It would also be much less of a
> > problem than merging x86 and amd64. How about this? I proclaim and x86
> > arch team now exists. It
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:41 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> >> Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
> >> change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
> >> I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
> >> users o
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Christian Parpart wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 05:45:43PM CDT]
>
>>This just leads me to assume you're not really a coder (wrt native
>>programming languages like C/C++), are you?
>
>
> *Grin* This sort of condescending attitude is rarely wise when it comes
> to dealing with
any known/standing issues people wish to get out before we move gcc-3.3.6 to
x86 stable ?
for those brave, please emerge gcc-3.3.6 on your stable x86 box and give it a
twirl
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
83 matches
Mail list logo
