| 1 |
MIkey wrote: |
| 2 |
> A bug, again, that the stage1 installation method was immune to, |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
How come? (I'm not familiar with toolchain.eclass at all.) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> which is |
| 7 |
> the topic at hand. Not who reported what when. I found that bug when it |
| 8 |
> hit me and noticed that it had been reported. I thanked the Gods that you |
| 9 |
> were working on it, that I hadn't attempted to upgrade a production box, |
| 10 |
> and went about my business avoiding it by installing from stage1. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Aaaargh. You've mentioned "bug reports [...] on upgrading gcc via that |
| 13 |
method". Got anything apropriate? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-jkt |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives