Re: it is almost mini-freeze time ...
En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
> >
> > > Hello everyone, ...
> > >
> > > glibc 2.3.1-12 is almost ready, and should fix all RC bugs (except
> the
> > > licence issue, but which will not stop glibc to enter testing,
> after
> > > all
> > > the licence problems has been in glibc for years, so it would not
> make
> > > the new version less buggy than the one actually in testing). The
> > > message about it can be seen here :
> > >
> > >
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200302/msg00191.html
> > >
> > > Anyway, as discussed previously, this marks the begining of our
> ocaml
> > > mini-freeze, so that we are ready to enter testing together with
> the
> > > new
> > > glibc.
> >
> > Do you think this glibc fix will allow ocaml to be built on sparc
> > with gcc 3.2? I'd like to be able to build cameleon on sparc now.
>
> I got and installed a sparc box this morning, but couldn't configure
> the
> bridge on my primary box, so i had to disable it. Anyone know how to
> make a linux bridge work correctly ?
I'm afraid, I don't.
> Anyway, Xavier had a look, and found the problem, it was just a
> configuration problem, and can be (temporarily) sovled by doing :
>
> mv config/m.h config/m.h.orig
> sed -e '/ARCH_ALIGN_DOUBLE/s/undef/define/' config/m.h.orig >
> config/m.h
>
> On Sparc after configure has been run.
OK, I'll try.
> Apparently gcc 3.2 now knows how to access 64 bit integers unaligned,
> while older gcc didn't know how to do this, or maybe it is just the
> configure script testing which went bad.
This is good to hear that this has been worked out. Is Xavier going
to fix this a more clean way?
BTW, I noticed that ocaml 3.06-16 has been rejected by ftp-masters
and that ocaml-3.06-source was empty in this version. Could you confirm
that this was a mistake?
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
<jerome.marant@free.fr>
http://marant.org
Reply to: