| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 13:47, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > - uclibc should be a cvs version and not 0.9.26, else you'll have binary |
| 5 |
> > > compatibility issues |
| 6 |
> > Sure we can do that. Does 0.9.26.YYYYMMDD work fine for this? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> do you mean, we should call it like this? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I was asking for your input on if we should call it that way if it's |
| 11 |
going to break bin compat problems. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > > 5. gcc-3.3.4 won't be supported (at least by me) until it gets a branch |
| 15 |
> > > update including the pie infrastructure (only 3.4.0 has it), or someone |
| 16 |
> > > backports/forwardports it. |
| 17 |
> > ok we can add the patch to 3.3.3-r6 |
| 18 |
> > Anything else pending for that gcc? Like the below #6 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> the stuff already added to 3.3.4 (you have sent an uclibc.patch) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> would you accept the uclibc patches like I have done it for gcc-3.4.0? |
| 24 |
> only stuff w/o autoconf results, running autoconf from ebuild? It is also |
| 25 |
> not critical (as mentioned in 3.4.0 ebuild) for use build, because we do |
| 26 |
> not build at that time libstdc++ , and only this is needing autoconf. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I've not looked at any of the 3.4.x stuff yet. Might try to do later.. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Peter |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 37 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |
Archives