On Friday 07 July 2006 17:53, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most > > > > > patches don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a > > > > > supported compiler in Gentoo. > > > > > > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of > > > > USE=vanilla ... > > > > > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of > > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with > > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done > > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done > > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. > > > > it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your > > request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go > > with what we have now. see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here > > ? > > Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older.
ignored *what* then ? you requested USE=vanilla control ssp, i said no and i'll add support for USE=nossp ... you requested USE/stub control, i said no, go delete the stubs i dont see what else you're referring to ... be specific, vague claims only lead to wasting of both our times > > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it > > > is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be > > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this > > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to > > > complain about now.) > > > > you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont > > really see how you could have expected this to be fixed already > > I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the > toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was > Halcy0n. all bets are off now then ... with Halcy0n leaving us, that leaves me as the only person maintaining the toolchain (there are few devs who contribute fixes for their ports and it helps out a ton, but that doesnt really count as being fully responsible for the toolchain packages). no more making retroactive claims when i wasnt involved ;P i trust azarah to help out, but he's been busy in real life so i havent/wont ask him to contribute since i know he cannot (even if he wants to) -mike
pgpo5gBd7Gxpr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
