| 1 |
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:06:45 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:03:17 -0600 |
| 5 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I'm really hoping this isn't a stable candidate. :P |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is an earlier gcc 4.3 a stable candidate, or have those plans been |
| 9 |
> abandoned? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> (I'm wondering whether it's worth the pain of dealing with 4.1's lack |
| 12 |
> of tr1 regex support...) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I was hoping to have the tree ready by Mar/Apr. Flameeyes dug up a lot |
| 15 |
of broken packages with his tinderbox runs that need addressing though. |
| 16 |
I'm going to go through the list, posting patches next week. Then we |
| 17 |
have to wait until they can be stabilized. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Which reminds me - maintainers, if you have a bug blocking #245547 that |
| 20 |
you have not yet CC'd arches on, do so now please. Most of these were |
| 21 |
opened in November and haven't seen any action. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 27 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 28 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives