On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:20:24PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > Nope - we should perhaps verify it's a real regression first. Do you have > > a quick test case available? Does anyone have the previous known good > > version of binutils around? > > Which is a good version? My apt-cache/proxy have these versions: > > binutils_2.17-2+b2_m68k.deb > binutils-dev_2.17-2+b2_m68k.deb > binutils_2.17-3_m68k.deb > binutils-dev_2.17-3_m68k.deb > binutils_2.17cvs20070426-3_m68k.deb > binutils_2.17cvs20070426-6_m68k.deb > binutils_2.17cvs20070426-8_m68k.deb
I have 2.17-3 and 2.17cvs20070426-8. Can you put the others where I can grab them? Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
