| 1 |
El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are |
| 10 |
> > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near |
| 11 |
> > >> stabilization)? |
| 12 |
> > >> |
| 13 |
> > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for |
| 14 |
> > >> testing purposes :-/ |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes |
| 17 |
> > > people's systems unbootable. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they |
| 22 |
> > can't find a supported compiler. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> What's the state of 1.99? I know someone was working on it recently. We'd |
| 25 |
> also have to update the handbooks. I think it could be several months of |
| 26 |
> work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is |
| 31 |
causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for |
| 32 |
stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or |
| 33 |
later anyway) |
Archives