This is what i have installe on my system, but how do you force the
system to use 2.95 say when doing a make-kpkg.

I usually have to go on and change the /usr/bin/gcc symlink to point to
the one I want at the time, which is why I ended up with a kernel with
3.2, forgot to change it one time

Alex


On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:09:10AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:54:49 +1000
> Alexander Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > What is the right version of gcc to compile the kernel with.
> > 
> > I have debian testing installed and have noticed the moved towards
> > gcc-3.3 but the doc for the kernel still mention 2.95.
> 
> Thats correct.
> 
> > I have successfuly built the kernel with 3.2 (by accident!)
> > 
> > What are other people using for their kernel 3.3 3.2 2.95 ???
> 
> I believe that it is possible to build a kernel with later compilers,
> but if anything goes wrong and you want to mail the linux kernel
> development list, they will not be willing to help unless you are
> compiling with 2.95.X
> 
> At least with Debian its relatively easy to keep more than one compiler
> on a machine. I currently have 2.95, 3.0 and 3.2. I should probably get 
> rid of 3.0. In fact I'm going to do that right now :-)
> 
> Erik
> -- 
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
>   Erik de Castro Lopo  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid)
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
> "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the 
> day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Ernst Jan Plugge  
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Reply via email to