Hi,
On 02/12/13 13:14, Matthias Klose wrote:
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
toolchain
for this
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
Hi,
(2013/12/04 9:52), Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #731069 [src:gcc-defaults] gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to
change using unified version of gcc
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
731069: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731069
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow
Hi!
On 12/02/2013 01:14 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the
toolchain
for
I have no objection to moving to a unified version of gcc on hppa.
gcc-4.8
would be my choice.
On 2-Dec-13, at 7:14 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to
work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
Matthias Klose wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least
Source: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.123
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc,
because FTBFS of many packages occur by e.g. c++11
on ports which stayed using gcc-4.6 and g++-4.6,
ia64, powerpc, s390x, sparc, alpha, powerpcspe, ppc64, sh4.
12 matches
Mail list logo
