| 1 |
On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > - uclibc should be a cvs version and not 0.9.26, else you'll have binary |
| 4 |
> > compatibility issues |
| 5 |
> Sure we can do that. Does 0.9.26.YYYYMMDD work fine for this? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
do you mean, we should call it like this? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > 5. gcc-3.3.4 won't be supported (at least by me) until it gets a branch |
| 10 |
> > update including the pie infrastructure (only 3.4.0 has it), or someone |
| 11 |
> > backports/forwardports it. |
| 12 |
> ok we can add the patch to 3.3.3-r6 |
| 13 |
> Anything else pending for that gcc? Like the below #6 |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
the stuff already added to 3.3.4 (you have sent an uclibc.patch) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
would you accept the uclibc patches like I have done it for gcc-3.4.0? |
| 18 |
only stuff w/o autoconf results, running autoconf from ebuild? It is also |
| 19 |
not critical (as mentioned in 3.4.0 ebuild) for use build, because we do |
| 20 |
not build at that time libstdc++ , and only this is needing autoconf. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Peter |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives