| 1 |
Hamish Greig [mailto:hgreig@×××××××××××.au] |
| 2 |
> I think the reason no-one responds to your posts are because |
| 3 |
> they are not structured in any methodical way. No sequence |
| 4 |
> showing how you've already tried to investigate the problem, |
| 5 |
> just a post asking for an answer, which doesn't get a lot of |
| 6 |
> respect from people who've taken time and effort to learn |
| 7 |
> things already. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm sorry that my terseness offends your sensibilities. All |
| 10 |
the information that I had available was in the post, i.e., |
| 11 |
gcc failed to build. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> What more than this dump can you tell us about this error? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
it's reproducable. it's not caused by OOM, but obviously by |
| 16 |
a build-level error, because certain objects that the source |
| 17 |
code thinks should be available, aren't. Perhaps looking at |
| 18 |
the detail I provided a bit closer might reveal that fact, in |
| 19 |
an obvious sort of manner (i.e., an ld error) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> What have you already done to investigate it? what level of |
| 22 |
> skill do you have in this area? are we expected to fix it for |
| 23 |
> you step by step or to guide you to a resolution? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Since I'm neither a maintainer, nor a GCC developer, but simply |
| 26 |
a gentoo-sparc user, my job is to report the bugs that I see. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If you are a developer or maintainer, one might questions the |
| 29 |
validity in your stance of attacking users for not providing |
| 30 |
the information that -you- feel is needed, instead of simply |
| 31 |
asking for additional detail. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It's no wonder the list is dry and gentoo is losing it's path. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-sparc@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives