| 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 |
Archives