Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About gcc-4.6 unmasking

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
>> 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)
>
> Ubuntu has used grub2 for 3 years, I am considering working on making
> it stable for at least x86 / amd64.
>
> -A
>

FYI, the code freeze for Grub 2.00 was announced today. It might be
better to target that at this point.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-02/msg00147.html