Hi, On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:01:41AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > It's my concern. We're adding much symbols - my concern is (1) the > script can't catch like this case, (2) your listed symbols are really > needed for libgcc-compat. Yes, apparently libgcc-compat is needed, > but I wonder such a lot of symbols are really needed. What do you > think? Adding too many symbols won't do much harm since programs compiled for sarge won't use them - we shouldn't add unnecessary cruft though. We we should ask the port maintainers to check which symbols are unnecessary when we have the patches for all archs together.
> BTW, I've finished to make compat symbols for alpha, arm, ia64, m68k, > and s390. After some more tests, I send it to this list. I added alpha and cleaned up mips a bit (removing two unneeded symbols), it passes all the tests (although I had to increase the timeout for test-lfs on escher, but I don't think that's related). Regards, -- Guido P.S.: many thanks to Ryan and Joey for their very quick responses to my debian-admin questions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
