From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27641 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2002 17:51:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27456 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2002 17:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO red.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.70) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2002 17:51:08 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by red.csi.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16nNlL-0003hc-00 for overseers@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:51:07 +0000 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:54:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Subject: failure notice (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 Why is the spam blocking reporting a problem with an empty IP address? What is the actual IP address in question it has a problem with? -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 19 Mar 2002 17:26:07 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON@sources.redhat.com To: jsm28@srcf.ucam.org Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sources.redhat.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : In an effort to cut down on our spam intake, we block email that is listed by certain open-relay tracking services. Unfortunately you may have just discovered the hard way that sometimes non-spam mail gets caught accidentally. In most cases you can clear this up by an upgrade to your mail server or sometimes by getting an erroneous listing removed. For more information about our use of these lists, see http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbls The IP number that I'm denying mail from is The list that you're on is http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?. See: http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml? for more information about this list and why you are on it. In the meantime, you can add yourself to the gcc.gnu.org "global allow list" by sending email to: global-allow-subscribe-jsm28=srcf.ucam.org@gcc.gnu.org This will enable you to send email without being subjected to further spam blocking. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7991 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2002 17:25:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.38) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2002 17:25:29 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16nNMV-00027g-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:25:27 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16nNMS-0004xy-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:25:24 +0000 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:25:19 +0000 (GMT) From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Alexandre Oliva cc: Subject: Re: patch for -Wno-long-long and early GNAT compilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Joseph Myers On 19 Mar 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I can agree that this will be the end of the problem depending on the > answer to my following question: how about 3.3? Are we going to try > to make at least some effort to keep GCC GNAT buildable with any > earlier releases of GCC supporting GNAT (i.e., 3.1), or as soon as 3.2 > is out, patches will soon find their way into the CVS tree that break > bootstraps that start from 3.1? Further to this point: currently the C compiler required to build non-C front ends when building a cross-compiler is 2.95 or later; C features added in 3.0 or later mustn't be required by front ends. Once 3.1 supporting Ada has been released; I think it's reasonable to require at least 3.1 (as the first Ada-supporting GCC release) to build the Ada front end in future releases - but we shouldn't move to a requirement of 3.2 as a bootstrap compiler for Ada until we also think it reasonable for building non-C front ends written in C. This means not until compilers based on 3.1 are no longer in widespread use. (At present, 2.95 and 2.96-RH compilers are in widespread use for C, maybe more widespread than 3.0, and will continue to be in widespread use for some time.) I think the "Debian stable uses 3.2 as the default C compiler" test would be reasonable. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk