1 |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: |
3 |
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 |
4 |
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
7 |
>> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 |
8 |
>> > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
>> > > |
10 |
>> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are |
11 |
>> > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near |
12 |
>> > >> stabilization)? |
13 |
>> > >> |
14 |
>> > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for |
15 |
>> > >> testing purposes :-/ |
16 |
>> > > |
17 |
>> > > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes |
18 |
>> > > people's systems unbootable. |
19 |
>> > > |
20 |
>> > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions. |
21 |
>> > |
22 |
>> > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they |
23 |
>> > can't find a supported compiler. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> What's the state of 1.99? I know someone was working on it recently. We'd |
26 |
>> also have to update the handbooks. I think it could be several months of |
27 |
>> work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September. |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is |
32 |
> causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for |
33 |
> stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or |
34 |
> later anyway) |
35 |
|
36 |
Ubuntu has used grub2 for 3 years, I am considering working on making |
37 |
it stable for at least x86 / amd64. |
38 |
|
39 |
-A |