[arch-dev-public] [signoff] glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild
I have put the glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild in [testing]. Apart from glibc-2.11, the kernel header patch level got bumped to the latest version and I took a newer snapshot of the binutils-2.20 branch. From a quick look at the changelog there should not be a lot of issues compiling stuff like previous glibc/gcc releases. As always, it has be well tested in Fedora and you should look there for any patches needed. Signoff both, Allan
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
I have put the glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild in [testing]. Apart from glibc-2.11, the kernel header patch level got bumped to the latest version and I took a newer snapshot of the binutils-2.20 branch.
From a quick look at the changelog there should not be a lot of issues compiling stuff like previous glibc/gcc releases. As always, it has be well tested in Fedora and you should look there for any patches needed.
valgrind needs a rebuild: Depends On : glibc>=2.10.1 glibc<2.11 perl -Dan
Am Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:40:04 -0600 schrieb Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
valgrind needs a rebuild: Depends On : glibc>=2.10.1 glibc<2.11 perl
-Dan
Just rebuilt it. I've only added a buildfix to make it compile. I hope it keeps working as epxected. -Andy
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:40:04 -0600 schrieb Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
valgrind needs a rebuild: Depends On : glibc>=2.10.1 glibc<2.11 perl
-Dan
Just rebuilt it. I've only added a buildfix to make it compile. I hope it keeps working as epxected.
Seems to be working well in some quick testing, thanks! -Dan
Dan McGee wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
Am Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:40:04 -0600 schrieb Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
valgrind needs a rebuild: Depends On : glibc>=2.10.1 glibc<2.11 perl
-Dan
Just rebuilt it. I've only added a buildfix to make it compile. I hope it keeps working as epxected.
Seems to be working well in some quick testing, thanks!
Thanks for the rebuild... I always forget about this! Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
I have put the glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild in [testing]. Apart from glibc-2.11, the kernel header patch level got bumped to the latest version and I took a newer snapshot of the binutils-2.20 branch.
From a quick look at the changelog there should not be a lot of issues compiling stuff like previous glibc/gcc releases. As always, it has be well tested in Fedora and you should look there for any patches needed.
This has been in [testing] for 10 days now and I have not heard of any issues. Time for some signoffs. Thanks, Allan
Allan McRae schrieb:
Allan McRae wrote:
I have put the glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild in [testing]. Apart from glibc-2.11, the kernel header patch level got bumped to the latest version and I took a newer snapshot of the binutils-2.20 branch.
From a quick look at the changelog there should not be a lot of issues compiling stuff like previous glibc/gcc releases. As always, it has be well tested in Fedora and you should look there for any patches needed.
This has been in [testing] for 10 days now and I have not heard of any issues. Time for some signoffs.
Signoff both.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Allan McRae schrieb:
Allan McRae wrote:
I have put the glibc-2.11 toolchain rebuild in [testing]. Apart from glibc-2.11, the kernel header patch level got bumped to the latest version and I took a newer snapshot of the binutils-2.20 branch.
From a quick look at the changelog there should not be a lot of issues compiling stuff like previous glibc/gcc releases. As always, it has be well tested in Fedora and you should look there for any patches needed.
This has been in [testing] for 10 days now and I have not heard of any issues. Time for some signoffs.
Signoff both.
Signoff x86_64
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dan McGee
-
Thomas Bächler