On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Meelis Roos wrote:
CCC If there are any objections, please feel free to email me. I don't plan
CCC on keeping them buried forever...only until a better way is found to
CCC generate them in a policy-compliant manner and also in manner that
CCC won't impact slower/older
I think he was talking about building cross-compilers on the m68k platform,
not
about cross-compilers to generate m68k binaries.
Yes, I understood the same. I do use binutils-m68k on i686 and find it
convenient but I also agree that building cross-binutils for all archs
on all archs (even the
Your message dated Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:52:03 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug
Ben Collins writes:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 05:38:17PM -0600, Matt Taggart wrote:
Hi debian-gcc,
FYI...
I built newer gcc-3.0 packages for hppa based on a cvs snapshot most
recently
synced up with upstream cvs on 2001-04-15. So basically I just replaced
the
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, David Schleef wrote:
Given how easy it is to build a debian package, I don't see much
need for the maintainer to build N cross-compiling packages -- it
also means that you're only likely to build the popular cross
binutils,
5 matches
Mail list logo
