1 |
On Sunday 28 May 2006 07:53, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
2 |
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
3 |
> > I don't know what 'upgrade guide' you have read, but: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> The gcc upgrade doc. The one, to which there is a link in the GWN. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > Which part of the upgrade guide did you not follw? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I followed the part, which said, that no additional work was required. The |
10 |
> part, which is now gone. The part, in the first green box. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> >>And it said, that 4.1.1 was supposed to be binary compatible to 3.4.6. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > it did not say so some weeks ago, and it does not say so today. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> It said so, right after 4.1.1 was unmasked and the GWN was released. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> >>> in such cases a rebuild of the affected packages |
19 |
> >>>(or even whole toolchain and system) might be required. |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> >>And thus, a rebuild of world/tc/system wouldn't be required. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > wrong., read again. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Yes, please FINALLY do so. Read it! At least once! |
26 |
|
27 |
I read it, several times. And never stated it, that no -e system/world is |
28 |
needed. MAybe YOU looked at it in a wrong moment? |
29 |
But even if there was such a box - GWN did NOT state, that it was absolutly |
30 |
riskless. You are talking bullshit! |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
> I behave like someone, who's been told to do "a" and now "b" is expected. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> >>Where was there a Qt update? |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > like the qt3.3.0 to 3.3.2 or 3.3.3 or 3.3.4 updates? or 3.2 to 3.3? |
38 |
> |
39 |
> So? Where was there an update? |
40 |
|
41 |
some weeks/month ago? |
42 |
There were many qt updates in the past. And each of them required to reemerge |
43 |
some kde packages. But it seems, that you don't want to understand that. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > yes it does. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> When did a non-update require something like this? Please be exact! |
50 |
|
51 |
I wrote it above! Until now every qt update that ever happened, broke some qt |
52 |
apps. Every! But you don't read, you are just sullen. |
53 |
|
54 |
You are pretty deep in 'Beleidigte Leberwurst' mode. |
55 |
|
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
> |
59 |
> Wrong. It still does. You should read it. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> > It said: |
62 |
> > The number of applications that do not compile with gcc-4.1 is extremely |
63 |
> > small now, and most users should not experience any problems with ~arch |
64 |
> > packages not compiling. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> So, what? Who's complaining about packages which don't compile because of |
67 |
> gcc-4.1.1? |
68 |
> |
69 |
|
70 |
I have read it, and I have quoted it. You are pretty obviously not able to |
71 |
understand. Two possible reasons: you don't want to understand, or you are |
72 |
stupid. Choose which one fits best. |
73 |
|
74 |
It said most people should not experience any problems. |
75 |
|
76 |
See? 'MOST' - most is not everybody. And 'SHOULD NOT ' which is very different |
77 |
from 'won't'. |
78 |
|
79 |
But you are not willing to see, that YOU are the one, who did not read it |
80 |
carefully, do you? You jumped into the unknown water and now, you are |
81 |
complaining, that it is cold. |
82 |
-- |
83 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |