Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@×××××××.net>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:04:50
Message-Id: 200605282157.01820.mcbrides9@comcast.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems by John Laremore
1 First time I ever did this on a mailing list...
2
3 John Laremore... you are PLONKED... My email filter now drops your emails into
4 the bit bucket where they belong....
5
6 On Sunday 28 May 2006 21:03, John Laremore wrote:
7 > quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
8 >
9 >
10 > From:  Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@××××.dk>
11 > Reply-To:  gentoo-user@l.g.o
12 > To:  gentoo-user@l.g.o
13 > Subject:  Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
14 > Date:  Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200
15 > MIME-Version:  1.0
16 > Received:  from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by
17 > bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun,
18 > 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 Received:  from robin.gentoo.org (localhost
19 > [127.0.0.1])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id
20 > k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMT Received:  from
21 > cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk [212.242.40.53])by
22 > robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4SMALei017832for
23 > <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:10:21 GMT
24 > Received:  from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35])by
25 > cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA9244F08for
26 > <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
27 > Received:  from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk
28 > [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id
29 > 6BB172869D7for <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20
30 > +0200 (CEST)
31 >
32 > >Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
33 > > > > This change could be a
34 > > > > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
35 > > >
36 > > > more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it
37 > > > with a hacked package.
38 > >
39 > >While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
40 > > likely.
41 > >
42 > >At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from perl-cleaner-1.03
43 > > to perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the same
44 > > tar file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of weeks
45 > > ago) installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, which
46 > > means that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did
47 > > install successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too
48 > > corrupted.
49 > >
50 > >So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that shouldn't have
51 > > been approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something stupid
52 > > by upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :)
53 > >
54 > >--
55 > >Bo Andresen
56 > >
57 > ><< attach3 >>
58 >
59 > Join the new Messenger beta now -- gentoo-user@g.o mailing list
60
61 --
62 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list