On 1 March 2013 23:41, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2013 06:37, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
Meh. I see little point of fixing this in ubuntu as C11 in gcc-4.7 is
still not stable and is not encouraged to be used.
Fair enough. No bug reports about it, and by
On 27 February 2013 15:40, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
The errors related to BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT are fixed upstream:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7242
The upstream changeset associated with that includes unrelated changes
to the macro. Attached gcc4.8_trac-7242.patch
On 1 March 2013 11:45, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2013 15:40, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
The errors related to BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT are fixed upstream:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7242
The upstream changeset associated with that includes
On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went
for a minimalistic hack/patch to workaround TIME_UTC in eglibc-2.16.
Simply undef TIME_UTC if defined.
Is that expected to work for a program that uses both
On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went
for a minimalistic hack/patch to workaround TIME_UTC in eglibc-2.16.
Simply undef TIME_UTC if
On 1 March 2013 23:55, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went
for a minimalistic hack/patch to
On 1 March 2013 16:56, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 March 2013 23:55, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full
On 2 March 2013 06:37, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
Meh. I see little point of fixing this in ubuntu as C11 in gcc-4.7 is
still not stable and is not encouraged to be used.
Fair enough. No bug reports about it, and by now people start moving
to boost1.50 anyway.
Bye now
--
To
The errors related to BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT are fixed upstream:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7242
The following packages ftbfs, because of an error in a boost system
header. Would it be possible to provide a fixed boost1.49 package, so
that these packages can be built in a
9 matches
Mail list logo
