Judging from the outpouring of support I received when I made the same
suggestion/offer :-( I'm unsurprised at seeing no public response to
yours either. But disappointed. I agree that this is a real problem
which does not seem to resonate with those not directly affected by
it.
I think the best
I doubt there is much reason to expect public support. Remember the
response to my request:
I really am not interested in changing all the error messages to give
details
about which version of GNU make that error was introduced, and I'm also not
interested in adding flags to every version of GNU
David Boyce wrote:
I'm unsurprised at seeing no public response to
yours either. But disappointed.
I'm not disappointed. Paul doesn't work for me so there is no obligation
for him to write patches or design specs supporting my use cases. And
neverthless, so far I've had no reason to be
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:36 -0500, tz wrote:
Unfortunately, in the embedded world, not everything is updated
constantly. Even the desktop is not updated weekly. ARM is still at
Fedora 12, though 16 was just released. I don't and won't have an
updated kernel tree that works unless I find
Paul Smith wrote:
Today you're having an issue with make, but tomorrow it will be a change
in GCC, or binutils, or whatever... then what? Will you be asking GCC
to add a special flag to switch back to old behavior just to support
older Linux kernels? Not going to happen. Why is this
On Nov 10, 2011 2:32 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:36 -0500, tz wrote:
I doubt the entire tree in the FSF repository can be properly
cross-compiled. Debian has taken to arrays of the various processors
so they can go native.
You don't need to
