1 |
begin quote |
2 |
On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100 |
3 |
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums |
6 |
> too. Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new |
7 |
> creation? |
8 |
|
9 |
Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc |
10 |
since 3.1 days) so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on. |
11 |
|
12 |
> Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or |
13 |
> testig state on portage? |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to |
16 |
decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own |
17 |
experience to see what goes. |
18 |
|
19 |
> |
20 |
> I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of |
21 |
> pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will |
22 |
> sort them out. |
23 |
|
24 |
It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure |
25 |
about glibc and kernel issues either. |
26 |
|
27 |
> |
28 |
> Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to |
29 |
> prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary? |
30 |
|
31 |
Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through |
32 |
the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just |
33 |
commented it out to see what happened. I suspect a lot of them are no |
34 |
longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new |
35 |
manner, not really an easy task. |
36 |
|
37 |
I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in |
38 |
speed though. |
39 |
|
40 |
//Spider |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
begin .signature |
45 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
46 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
47 |
end |