El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> 
> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
> > >> stabilization)?
> > >>
> > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for
> > >> testing purposes :-/
> > > 
> > > Grub is the only blocker.  I don't want to unmask something that makes
> > > people's systems unbootable.
> > > 
> > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions.
> > 
> > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they
> > can't find a supported compiler.
> 
> What's the state of 1.99?  I know someone was working on it recently.  We'd
> also have to update the handbooks.  I think it could be several months of
> work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September.
> 
> 

As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is
causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for
stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or
later anyway)