1 |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:51:14 -0600 |
2 |
Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> |
5 |
> wrote: |
6 |
> > All bugs blocking #198121 having obviously correct (eg. missing |
7 |
> > header) patches will be applied by me in the coming week. If you |
8 |
> > have concerns about me touching your package (i swear i'll wash my |
9 |
> > hands first), please let me know. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > As always, applying these patches yourself makes me a happy monkey. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I'll try to have this done by the end of the week. I will also |
14 |
> > handle filing of stabilization bugs for these packages at the end of |
15 |
> > February. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=198121&max |
18 |
> > depth=1&hide_resolved=1 |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Ryan, |
21 |
> Surely, at this point we aren't going to let all those bugs hold up |
22 |
> gcc-4.3 stabilization? Most of which were only found via Diego's |
23 |
> tinderboxing which implies that no user cares enough about the package |
24 |
> to report a bug (or no one uses the package). I've been working on the |
25 |
> gcc-4.3 stabilzation tracker and all the bugs now have arches CC'd on |
26 |
> the bugs so, once the glibc-2.8 stab tracker is resolved (which Fauli |
27 |
> has been working on) I think we should be good to mark gcc-4.3 stable. |
28 |
|
29 |
I'm going through the list and marking anything that i think should |
30 |
block stabilization as P1. In the end though it's up to toolchain to |
31 |
decide when they want to go ahead. |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
36 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
37 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |