On 6/15/2023 07:37, Sam James wrote:
Joshua Kinard writes:
Noticing that the ebuild for gcc-12.3.0 got dropped with little
explanation. It is the upstream stable release. I am eyeballing
#906310 as what may have triggered the drop, but I find it a bit of a
stretch that an upstream stable
On 6/15/2023 01:04, Matt Turner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:02 AM Joshua Kinard wrote:
Options? I mean, if anyone knows magic to make gcc build faster, I
am all ears, but ever since the switch to
C++, the time needed for it to build itself has just been absolutely
horrendous. And it
Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2023, 06:02:14 CEST schrieb Joshua Kinard:
>
> Noticing that the ebuild for gcc-12.3.0 got dropped with little explanation.
> It is the upstream stable
> release. I am eyeballing #906310 as what may have triggered the drop, but I
> find it a bit of a stretch ...
This
Joshua Kinard writes:
> Noticing that the ebuild for gcc-12.3.0 got dropped with little
> explanation. It is the upstream stable release. I am eyeballing
> #906310 as what may have triggered the drop, but I find it a bit of a
> stretch that an upstream stable release got dropped over a
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:02 AM Joshua Kinard wrote:
Options? I mean, if anyone knows magic to make gcc build faster, I
am all ears, but ever since the switch to
> C++, the time needed for it to build itself has just been absolutely
> horrendous. And it gets worse with each
> new release,
Noticing that the ebuild for gcc-12.3.0 got dropped with little explanation. It is the upstream stable
release. I am eyeballing #906310 as what may have triggered the drop, but I find it a bit of a stretch that
an upstream stable release got dropped over a single, optional package that has
