Horms wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0 > > > >> > > > >> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ? > > > >> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago > > > >> seems to indicate thus: > > > >> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7 > > > > > > > > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4. > > > > > > But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet? > > > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more. > > I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included > in etch.
I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to be around for etch. > My understanding is that it is needed for some arches, > and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in > many cases is a valid choice over 2.6. I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4 which provides little benefit for the kernel. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
