On Thursday 30 of June 2011, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Friday 17 of June 2011, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > > Is it OK to merge 0.9.32 on HEAD?
> > > The simple static cases (busybox functions) which were reported to fail
> > > wit
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Friday 17 of June 2011, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > Is it OK to merge 0.9.32 on HEAD?
> > The simple static cases (busybox functions) which were reported to fail
> > with 0.9.31 seem to work now (tested on i686).
>
> This one f
On Friday 17 of June 2011, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> Is it OK to merge 0.9.32 on HEAD?
> The simple static cases (busybox functions) which were reported to fail
> with 0.9.31 seem to work now (tested on i686).
This one fails:
[arekm@carme-pld-i686 ~]$ cat a1.c
int
main ()
{
;
r
On 29.06.2011 14:25, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
Hi all!
I don't know should I/we do anything, but I've found this error:
make[1]: ccache: Command not found
Should we include "BR: ccache" to almost all spec? Or any other way?
if the ccache is included into CC due it was present at build time,
those
On 29.06.2011 15:21, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
Nothing in default configuration requires ccache, so it should not be
required.
Oh, okay. But I think rpm-build-tools can suggests ccache because of
default %{__cc}.
ccache is not by default in %__cc, review your local ~/.rpmmacros
--
glen
___
On Sunday 19 of June 2011, qboosh wrote:
> Author: qboosh Date: Sun Jun 19 14:09:55 2011 GMT
> Module: packages Tag: HEAD
> Log message:
> - added pl.po-update patch
Was this send upstream?
--
Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team
arekm / mave
> [sparky@quad ~/rpm/packages *master]$ grep -r ccache rpm-build-macros
> [sparky@quad ~/rpm/packages *master]$
>
> Am I missing something ?
Hm. Indeed. I thought that ccache is in the default config. Sorry ;)
Zsolt
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-deve
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:21:55PM +0200, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> > Nothing in default configuration requires ccache, so it should not be
> > required.
> Oh, okay. But I think rpm-build-tools can suggests ccache because of
> default %{__cc}.
[sparky@quad ~/rpm/packages *master]$ grep -r ccache rpm-b
> Nothing in default configuration requires ccache, so it should not be
> required.
Oh, okay. But I think rpm-build-tools can suggests ccache because of
default %{__cc}.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:59:29PM +0200, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> Yes, I know that should install ccache.
Noone says that you should. I was saying that you should have
configuration matching your current system.
> But I think if appears in spec
> files the "BR: tar" (Sparky, you've added this line
Yes, I know that should install ccache. But I think if appears in spec
files the "BR: tar" (Sparky, you've added this line into
awesome.spec), maybe should present "BR: ccache". As I see, you can
uninstall ccache without any broken deps. Or maybe rpm-build-tools
should requires ccache.
Or is it not
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:25:26PM +0200, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I don't know should I/we do anything, but I've found this error:
>
> make[1]: ccache: Command not found
>
> Should we include "BR: ccache" to almost all spec? Or any other way?
You could start by fixing your local setup
Hi all!
I don't know should I/we do anything, but I've found this error:
make[1]: ccache: Command not found
Should we include "BR: ccache" to almost all spec? Or any other way?
Zsolt
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http:
On 29.06.2011 12:40, Michal Lisowski wrote:
W dniu 28.06.2011 20:00, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
On 28.06.2011 10:19, lisu wrote:
Log message:
- updated to 0.8.7
- updated no-update.patch
- adapt locales handling to upstream changes (locale files are now
placed into a single zip file)
upstream
W dniu 28.06.2011 20:00, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
On 28.06.2011 10:19, lisu wrote:
Log message:
- updated to 0.8.7
- updated no-update.patch
- adapt locales handling to upstream changes (locale files are now
placed into a single zip file)
upstream is stupid does not mean we should follow it?
15 matches
Mail list logo