Eric Bélanger wrote:
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.
I have considered this and did a diff on the packages and came to same
conclusion as you. But I did not want to assume that this will always
be the case... screwing up the toolchain is not something I want to do!
Also, it is not a real "any" package. I believe the package is
different on e.g. ppc (asm stuff that Jan mentioned), although I have
not checked...
So, I think I will leave this package as is.
Allan
