>>> On 11.02.16 at 11:59, wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 03:42 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I think it is quite relevant which version is to be picked: Anything
>> older no-one could legitimately report issues against (and I would
>> very much like to continue to be able to submit build fixes I fi
On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 03:42 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I think it is quite relevant which version is to be picked: Anything
> older no-one could legitimately report issues against (and I would
> very much like to continue to be able to submit build fixes I find
> necessary on those two old boxes I
>>> On 10.02.16 at 21:36, wrote:
> On 28/01/2016 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.01.16 at 14:02, wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 05:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
> binutils ne
On 28/01/2016 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.01.16 at 14:02, wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 05:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
binutils need to be supported document them explicit
On 1/28/16 7:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.01.16 at 14:02, wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 05:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
binutils need to be supported document them explicitl
>>> On 28.01.16 at 14:02, wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 05:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
>> > To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
>> > binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
>> > binutils that ha
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 05:49 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
> > To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
> > binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
> > binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
> > h
>>> On 28.01.16 at 00:12, wrote:
> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
> binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
> binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg0060
To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg00609.html
as 2.17 recently. It was decided th
