On Mar 15, Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Your argument that 2.91.66 is recommended to build 2.4 kernels is > partially wrong. At least for architecures alpha, powerpc, sparc, > mips, (hppa, s390, ...) it's not used (please correct me, if I am > wrong). > > As Ray pointed out, gcc-2.95.3 seems to be capable to build usable 2.4 > kernels. Unfortunately this is not yet released (we use the test5 > release), so you won't get a recommendation from the kernel developers > to use an unreleased compiler.
I guess you're speaking to the original poster here, I don't want it for kernels, I just want it to build A+. > Neil L. Roeth writes: > > On Mar 13, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: important > > > > > > Cheers Ray, > > > > > > Surely there's another, easier, way instead of chasing and digging in > > > slink dists after old egcs package versions, and elsewhere after > > > patches, and still being unsure if one can pull everything through. > > > > > > We have the 'alternatives'. Cannot that be used to add one more > > > compiler to the family? Would anyone with better understanding of this > > > care to comment? > > >From my point of view, alternatives are dangerous for the > compiler. In bug reports it's difficult to see the compiler > used. Therefore if you need a special version of the compiler, name it > directly. Sounds good to me, but I don't know how to do the rename when installing from a slink package. There were lots of conflicts with various libraries, too, when I attempted it. > > I, too, would like to see egcs 1.1.2 (2.91.66) in potato. I recently > > had to compile a program that would compile with that, but not with > > 2.95.2, and when I tried to install the slink package it told me it > > conflicted with the installed gcc (obviously). > > A comparision against 2.95.2 isn't useful. Compare it with 2.95.3. The program won't compile under 2.95.2, why would you expect it to work under 2.95.3? > To get a version for potato, fetch > > http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc/potato/ > > (There are still a few installation bugs in the -doc packages) > > > I ended up building > > egcs the old-fashiond way in /usr/local/ and resetting the path > > temporarily when compiling the other program. Is there an easy way to > > install Debian packages to a different destination than their default? > > And tell it to go ahead and install there even if the package > > conflicts with another? > > dpkg -x <package> <dir> and setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Thanks! > > You can read about building and installing A+ on a Debian system at > > http://www.aplusdev.org. > > These are instructions to build on a potato system. You won't solve > these issues with a compiler uploaded to unstable. I said "I, too, would like to see egcs 1.1.2 (2.91.66) in potato". I guess woody would be helpful to me, too. ^^^^^^ > As a member of the gcc packaging group I don't like the idea to > include egcs-1.1.2 in woody again. > > - Please wait until gcc-2.95.3 is finally released and you can get a > recommendation for kernel builds. > > - If egcs is still needed, it shouldn't use alternatives. > > - egcs should only be built for architectures that need it (currently > i386, maybe m68k). See my reply to Adrian following this. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
