| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
> Mike Kazantsev wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> And I hate to re-emerge same gcc every time some minor bug (which I |
| 8 |
>> didn't happen to reproduce) is fixed. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> IKWYM but I think, on balance, this one would have benefited from a bump |
| 11 |
> as the effects of the breakage were quite widespread. It did make a |
| 12 |
> difference to the installed files, which is the usual criterion for a |
| 13 |
> bump. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The reason there wasn't a bump (IIRC) was that the ebuild never changed |
| 16 |
- - only the eclass did. If you emerged any version of GCC during the |
| 17 |
window where the eclass was broken, that version of GCC would have been |
| 18 |
broken. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
ABCD |
| 22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 24 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmJCq4ACgkQOypDUo0oQOqeqwCgrFG9t4t3+ZmTKY5EcjW81Ab/ |
| 27 |
YIoAmQEQh7FXNlrIj/dCmqSGoIk+g4YG |
| 28 |
=3Eiv |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives