-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Is it because of this? I am trying...
No it isn't. In all cases so far it has been
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/8418#comment:1
~ Jow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigma
I find the different between r25743 and r25742:
PKG_REMOVE_FILES = autogen.sh aclocal.m4
Is it because of this? I am trying...
Thanks
Alan
2011/3/5 OpenWrt
> #8979: opkg config error: cannot find input file: `Makefile.in'
>
> --+-
On 2011-03-04 10:26 PM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> (Third time's the charm? Sorry for the spam.)
>
> This applies Richard Sandiford's patch for Linaro GCC as an alternative to
> disabling the Linaro-specific extension elimination optimization altogether.
>
> Original patch: https://bugs.launchpad.ne
(Third time's the charm? Sorry for the spam.)
This applies Richard Sandiford's patch for Linaro GCC as an alternative to
disabling the Linaro-specific extension elimination optimization altogether.
Original patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/728315
Signed-off-by: Mark Mentovai
-
(Resending, the original attempt wrapped unexpectedly.)
This applies Richard Sandiford's patch for Linaro GCC as an alternative
to disabling the Linaro-specific extension elimination optimization
altogether.
Original patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/728315
Signed-off-by: Mark
This applies Richard Sandiford's patch for Linaro GCC as an
alternative to disabling the Linaro-specific extension elimination
optimization altogether.
Original patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/728315
Signed-off-by: Mark Mentovai
---
Index: toolchain/gcc/patches/linaro/860-fix_
> How am I supposed to figure out the exact revision number corresponding to a
> particular binary release (or release candidate)?
So far we mentioned it in every release note, posted to the devel list, the
users list, the forum and for finals in the Trac roadmap again.
- Jow
PGP.sig
Descr
On 04/03/11 12:42, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:05:02 +0100, Mark Vels
> wrote:
>
>
>>> in my opinion is that the developers community of OpenWRT has no
>>> interest in keeping a tagged packages tree.
>
> Right
Did you forget the tags here?
>
>> Please add at least a revision numbe
Hello,
Imre Kaloz wrote:
> P.S: If you need a specific revision for bugtracking/testing, you should
> be smart enough to figure out how to get there.
How am I supposed to figure out the exact revision number corresponding to a
particular binary release (or release candidate)? Does it cost anythin
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:05:02 +0100, Mark Vels
wrote:
in my opinion is that the developers community of OpenWRT has no
interest in keeping a tagged packages tree.
Right
Please add at least a revision number in feeds.conf for anything else
than bleeding edge! Time to grow up!
Sure, and y
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:05 +0100, Mark Vels wrote:
> Please add at least a revision number in feeds.conf for anything else
> than bleeding edge! Time to grow up!
>
Yes, IMHO every OpenWRT tag and preferably every branch should contain a
feeds.conf file with revision numbers set for the trees i
On 03/02/2011 05:39 PM, ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto) wrote:
The source tree is tagged. LuCI is tagged. But "packages" apparently isn't.
this thing of having packages feed tagged comes back from time to time.
in my opinion is that the developers community of OpenWRT has no
interest in keeping a tagg
12 matches
Mail list logo
