Re: Anyone got a working copy of sp around?
Paul Slootman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hmmm, you're implying that the current version in hamm is broken?
It was two weeks ago before I left on my vacation, and I just
re-checked it. It's busted.
> Is it the specifically the build that's broken, or is that version
> inherently broken?If it's the build, the Right Thing to do now would
> be to fix that build... If you could tell what specifically is
> wrong, the person who built it (not me, I believe) could fix it...
It's specifically the build---apparently this is one slight bug that
egcs-1.0.3 gets us that 1.0.2 did not have. It shows up on the i386
As far as the person who built it fixing it, I _am_ the person who
built it, and I am working on rebuilding, using Chris' snapshot egcs.
We'll see if that makes a difference.
If it doesn't, though, we need a fallback.
> What version are you looking for, i.e. from around what date? I see the
> current version is from May 4; I have a couple of older cdroms lying
> around that might have the version you're looking for. (I mirror the
> stuff at work, and then burn a cdrom when I need the mirror elsewhere.
> Hence I've about 6 versions from about Feb.)
Probably any of the ones from Feb would be fine, but don't bother
right yet---I'm going to try and rebuild jade with the snapshot egcs,
to see if that works.
If that fails, then we need to wedge the older one back in so we can
continue to work productively---without jade, debiandoc and linuxdoc
all croak, which makes building some packages (afterstep and dpkg, off
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org