[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    [gentoo-dev] Re: About gcc-4.6 unmasking
From:       Ryan Hill <dirtyepic () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2012-02-22 1:14:16
Message-ID: 20120221191416.7155f3ee () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:26:38 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
> > > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
> > > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near
> > > >> stabilization)?
> > > >>
> > > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for
> > > >> testing purposes :-/
> > > > 
> > > > Grub is the only blocker.  I don't want to unmask something that makes
> > > > people's systems unbootable.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions.
> > > 
> > > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they
> > > can't find a supported compiler.
> > 
> > What's the state of 1.99?  I know someone was working on it recently.  We'd
> > also have to update the handbooks.  I think it could be several months of
> > work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September.
> 
> As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is
> causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for
> stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or
> later anyway)

We should probably work on getting it keyworded first. ;)  But yeah, this
might be the good reason needed to push it forward.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]