Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

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
> >> old gcc versions should be shipped or dropped.
> > 
> > We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272).  Does anyone actually use
> > this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?
> 
> Not sure about 2.7.2, but 2.95 is definitly usable - at least to compile
> code that has problems with later versions. I hope it will not be removed
> anytime soon.
> 
> And 2.95 is ok to build both kernel 2.4 and 2.2
> 

Eh, deja vu. We have yet libc5 and its toolchain around just to allow 
use and compilation of ancient code. When I asked for revoming due
to an old grave bug, people answered almost the same: it's yet useful.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Nikita V. Youshchenko]

> -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.
>>
>> 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
>> old gcc versions should be shipped or dropped.
> 
> We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272).  Does anyone actually use
> this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?

Not sure about 2.7.2, but 2.95 is definitly usable - at least to compile
code that has problems with later versions. I hope it will not be removed
anytime soon.

And 2.95 is ok to build both kernel 2.4 and 2.2


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Adrian von Bidder]

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 etch.
> >
> > 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 old gcc versions should be shipped or dropped.
>
> We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272).  Does anyone actually use
> this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?

Some embedded people who still use Linux 2.0 + uclinux?

Not sure at all, but that's what we used not that long ago (around 2000;2.4 
was long out then, so 2.0 was already ancient.  Ok, it is a bit long ago, 
but still...)

greetings
-- vbi

-- 
Die Veränderlichkeit der Naturkonstanten scheint eine Idee zu sein,
deren Zeit gekommen ist.  Nur die Natur ist noch nicht so weit.
-- Max Rauner, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 21.4.2004


pgp2oOGL8UdU8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Roger Leigh]

-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.
>
> 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 old gcc 
> versions should be shipped or dropped.

We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272).  Does anyone actually use
this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?


- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFC0tQSVcFcaSW/uEgRAltwAJ445XH8bW9IzVFPbbcJs3bY8MaUXgCfa6Ap
LKHHf7hJox+kn8w3Ds5bOI4=
=LvYy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Adrian von Bidder]

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 compile 2.4 kernels' is a big enough reason to keep some 
gcc version around if Debian gets to the point to decide which old gcc 
versions should be shipped or dropped.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/subkeys


pgpnSHnGznqSt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Goswin von Brederlow]

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]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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.
> > 
> > Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
> 
> Sort of.  2.4 kernels have generally been patched by most
> distributions to the point where they are hardly recognizeable.  Both
> Red Hat and SuSE have backported _so_ many 2.5/2.6 features into their
> "2.4 kernel" that you generally can't boot a kernel.org 2.4 kernel on
> their systems.  Since all of the distributions have forked so far from
> the mainstream kernel, and most of the kernel developers are focusing
> on 2.6, most 2.4 maintenance takes place within the various
> distributions.  It's therefore up to the Debian kernel team whether
> they feel like supporting 2.4 or not.  

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your remarks. I think the current sentiment of the kernel
team is that we'd rather not if we don't have to. With your comments in
mind, this probably boils down to how many architectures need it, by
which I mean, how many architecures can't use 2.6. And how solid 2.6 is.
My personal feeling - as the person most likely to maintain a 2.4 kernel - 
is that in the case of the former, its probably too few to warant
supporting 2.4 across the board.  And in the case of the latter, by the
time etch comes out, 2.6 will have progressed and along the way should
become more and more solid. So in all respects it would seem better to
focus on 2.6.

-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Theodore Ts'o]

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 generally been patched by most
distributions to the point where they are hardly recognizeable.  Both
Red Hat and SuSE have backported _so_ many 2.5/2.6 features into their
"2.4 kernel" that you generally can't boot a kernel.org 2.4 kernel on
their systems.  Since all of the distributions have forked so far from
the mainstream kernel, and most of the kernel developers are focusing
on 2.6, most 2.4 maintenance takes place within the various
distributions.  It's therefore up to the Debian kernel team whether
they feel like supporting 2.4 or not.  

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Peter Samuelson]

[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

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Goswin von Brederlow]

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> on any other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
> library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
> wouldn't get anywhere...
>
> I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
> application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
> criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
> seems pointless.
> -- 
> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?

If the library is only used by dar then link it in static. If it is
used by other binaries too then you prevent having multiple versions
of the lib installed.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Matthias Klose]

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 C++ library besides libstdc++.
> 
> Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
> library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
> wouldn't get anywhere...
> 
> I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
> application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
> criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
> seems pointless.

yes, of course. thanks for the clarification.

  Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Brian May]

> "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 libstdc++.

Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
wouldn't get anywhere...

I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
seems pointless.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Elimar Riesebieter]

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 to make it complex and wonderful ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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:
> > > > > 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?
> > > what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
> > > that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
> > 
> > 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 .
> 
> 2.4 is still being looked after though, isn't it? Maybe the hackers
> don't care about it from a features perspective, I'd be suprised if
> there weren't people working on security problems as and when they
> happen. 

2.4 is being maintained in the big wide world. Its being looked after
for security bugs. And it is being maintained upstram. Almost all of
the development focus upstream is on 2.6, and almost all shiny new
feature are going into 2.6 rather than 2.4. But 2.4 is not dead
upstream.

> As for it not compiling with GCC 4.x, is there really any good reason to
> make it do so? The lifetime of the 2.4 kernel is undoubtably less than
> the GCC 3.x branch in distributions. Any attempt to port 2.4 to 4.0
> would run the risk of introducing problems for no gain.

I don't believe it is worth while to do so - we can always compile
it with gcc 3.x, and as you point out, that isn't a compiler
that is going away in a hurry. Furthermore, I don't think there
are any efforts going into making this happen.

-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Jon Dowland]

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.
> > > 
> > > 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?
> > what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
> > that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
> 
> 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 .

2.4 is still being looked after though, isn't it? Maybe the hackers
don't care about it from a features perspective, I'd be suprised if
there weren't people working on security problems as and when they
happen. 

As for it not compiling with GCC 4.x, is there really any good reason to
make it do so? The lifetime of the 2.4 kernel is undoubtably less than
the GCC 3.x branch in distributions. Any attempt to port 2.4 to 4.0
would run the risk of introducing problems for no gain.

-- 
Jon Dowland
http://jon.dowland.name/
PGP fingerprint: 7032F238


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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 left alone by the
> > kernel developers.
> 
> 2.2 went also in deep freeze for 2.4?
> what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
> that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?

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.

-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[maximilian attems]

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?
what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
 
--
maks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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 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
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
> > > > 
> > > > But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
> > > 
> > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> > 
> > I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
> > in etch.
> 
> I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have
> even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to
> be around for etch.

Sure. I don't think there is any immediate threat that we won't be able
to compile 2.4 in etch. For i386 at least, we have been using gcc-3.3 to
compile 2.4.27, and from a casual glance that seems to be the case in
other arches. 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.

> > My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
> > and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
> > many cases is a valid choice over 2.6.
> 
> I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a
> more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4
> which provides little benefit for the kernel.

Yes. I understand from a recent lkml post that there is
absolutely no interest in making 2.4 compile with gcc 4.
And yes, discussing 2.4's incusion (or not) in etch isn't directly
related to this discussion about gcc versions at all. I just wanted
to bring it to the table so people can mull over it a bit.
Though I might have been better off making a separate post.

-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Thiemo Seufer]

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 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
> > > >
> > > > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
> > > 
> > > But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
> > 
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> 
> I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
> in etch.

I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have
even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to
be around for etch.

> My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
> and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
> many cases is a valid choice over 2.6.

I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a
more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4
which provides little benefit for the kernel.


Thiemo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Thiemo Seufer]

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. :-)


Thiemo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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 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
> > >
> > > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
> > 
> > But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
> 
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.

I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
in etch. My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
many cases is a valid choice over 2.6. That said, I think its a
discussion that should be had and I am more than happy not to have
to maintain 2.4 for etch if there is no need for it.

-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Marc Haber]

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

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Thiemo Seufer]

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 indicate thus:
> >> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7
> >
> > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
> 
> But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?

Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.


Thiemo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Horms]

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 for all the kernel images that
are in the kernel team's svn tree, that is alpha, hppa, i386, ia64,
mips, powerpc, s390 and sparc.  This should appear in their respective
next releases. I have CCed the uploaders of these packages, if you are
one of those people and have a reason to undo this change, please do so,
I have no ambitions to tread on your toes.


-- 
Horms


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Otavio Salvador]

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:
>> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7
>
> Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.

But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
-
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Matthias Klose]

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 PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Thiemo Seufer]

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:
> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7

Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.


Thiemo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change

[Junichi Uekawa]

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, Debian Developer   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/
183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5  CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]