In article <73358a0c54.b...@ron1954.woosh.co.nz>,
Ron wrote:
> So I'm guessing that unstable would continue to trickle into testing,
> after the required wait in unstable of 10 days. So there wouldn't be any
> more changes to 'testing' on the changeover day than on any other day.
No, that's no
In message
Ron wrote:
> In message <540c7aec44chr...@care4free.net>
> Chris Gransden wrote:
>
> > The problem with standardising on 'stable' is what happens when the
> > current 'testing' becomes 'stable'. A whole load of packages will
> > then need updating. It's easier to
In message <540c7aec44chr...@care4free.net>
Chris Gransden wrote:
> The problem with standardising on 'stable' is what happens when the curent
> 'testing' becomes 'stable'. A whole load of packages will then need
> updating. It's easier to keep them up to date gradually instead of all i
> Given that 'testing' is a moving target, is it better to stabilise on
> something? Has recent package updating work (Alan, Lee, Chris?) been using
> the default sources (ie 'testing')?
Most of the libraries build ok with 'testing'. Any that don't normally only
need minor changes.
chox11 is qu
On 23/05/14 15:03, Alan Buckley wrote:
Several games I have recompiled with GCC4.7 crash when I try to run them
with:
UnixLib detected recursion of signal SIGSEGV. Exiting.
Tutris is a good example to look at as it is a relatively small game.
It can be built from the autobuilder (name tutris).
It
Several games I have recompiled with GCC4.7 crash when I try to run them with:
UnixLib detected recursion of signal SIGSEGV. Exiting.
Tutris is a good example to look at as it is a relatively small game.
It can be built from the autobuilder (name tutris).
It seems to be crashing before running a
