On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Jan de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 15:45 -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > The binutils-2.20 toolchain rebuild is in [testing] for i686. I will do >> > the x86_64 rebuilds in the next day or two. A summary of changes: >> > >> > kernel-headers - bump to latest >> > >> > binutils - bump to latest >> > >> > glibc - grab upstream patchset for proposed future stable release, fix >> > overflow bug (FS#16253), patch to build against latest binutils >> > >> > gcc - bump to latest, use package spitting (gcc-libs, gcc, gcc-fortran, >> > gcc-objc), move static libraries from gcc-libs to gcc, add gcc-ada >> > package, do not run fixincludes during build. >> > >> > I will call for a signoff a few days after getting the x86_64 builds done. >> > >> > Allan >> > >> >> FYI, kernel-headers would be a candidate for the any arch. However, if >> you do the switch, then you'll need to release the toolchain for both >> arches at the same time otherwise it might break some stuff. > > I wouldn't be too sure about that. Have you diffed extracted tarballs of > kernel-headers for both architectures and did it return only .PKGINFO > related differences? > Reason for asking this is the /usr/include/asm directory. Though these > files are just stupid header files, the asm directory is usually taken > from architecture-specific includes. > >
I had the same thought and had done a diff for kernel-headers-2.6.30.5-1. Only the .PKGINFO were different. It's possible that this will be changed for future updates though. Maybe it would be safer to keep it arch dependent.
