On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:27:27PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
I'm quite confident that the release team and/or gcc maintainers will
agree that 'is needed to compile 2.4 kernels' is a big enough reason to
keep some gcc version around if Debian gets to the point to decide which
On Monday 11 July 2005 22.18, Roger Leigh wrote:
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
will be omitted from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
will be omitted from
On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
will be omitted from etch.
I'm quite confident that the release team and/or gcc maintainers will agree
that 'is needed to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
will be omitted from etch.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
about it in my books.
Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
Sort of. 2.4 kernels have
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:52:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
about it in my books.
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
Sorry, my bad. Must learn to read more carefully.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Matthias Klose told:
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Do we have to put
CFLAGS += -Wno-pointer-sign
by default to each rules file?
Elimar
--
Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
can be found
Matthias == Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
Matthias other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Matthias - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
Matthias on any other C++ library besides
Brian May writes:
Matthias == Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
Matthias other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Matthias - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
Matthias on any other
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias == Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
Matthias other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Matthias - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
Matthias
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
seems to
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
Greetings
Marc
--
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've
Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by upstream is still 2.95. :-)
Horms wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:23AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Horms wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
2.2 went also in deep freeze for 2.4?
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
(for g77 and gpc to 3.4, these are not supported in 4.0) on all
architectures. The GCC-4.0 version used is taken from the GCC 4.0
branch (something that will likely become the 4.0.1 release candidate
3). The switch to 4.0 (instead
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
seems to indicate thus:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7
regards,
junichi
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
seems to indicate thus:
Junichi Uekawa writes:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
seems to indicate thus:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:07:23AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Junichi Uekawa writes:
Hi,
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
I have added this as a build dependancy
29 matches
Mail list logo
