Re: DRAGONFLY 1.2 RELEASED!

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>]

-On [20050410 19:12], Matthew Dillon (dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>    I don't think we want to rip up our dfports stuff until we actually
>    have something to replace it with.

That wasn't what I suggested.

>    I'm not sure I understand what you mean about gcc 3.x not having any
>    freebsd compatibility.  Binaries compiled with gcc 3.x work just fine
>    on a FreeBSD-4.x box.  Maybe you are thinking of the FreeBSD-5 signal
>    changes that broke FreeBSD 5's backwards compatibility with FreeBSD-4
>    (and now also new system calls that are made unconditionally in FreeBSD-5
>    which also break compatibility with FreeBSD-4).

Nope.  Not what I meant as well.

Current dfports compiles as freebsd-4.8, GCC 2.95.x is configured for the
FreeBSD fall back.  GCC 3.x is not, we need to move forward into using our
own uname for compiling ports if you want to rip out gcc 2.95.x like you
said in your plans on the 1.2 release page.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/
I have not yet begun to fight...