On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:59:05PM +0100, George B. wrote: > On 8/19/05, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:05:10PM +0100, George B. wrote: > > > On 8/18/05, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it should do just that. > > > > > > Sorry, which one? Automatically use gcc-3.3, or default to gcc-4.0? > > > > Sorry for being unclear. If you build kernel-source-2.4.27 2.4.27-11 > > then it should use gcc-3.3 for the build, even if your default > > gcc is gcc-4.0. To be more specific, if you inspect the makefile > > you will see that it actually sets the compiler to be gcc-3.3, > > rather than gcc. > > > > Of course if you use a different Makefile, say to build > > out of tree modules, or force the compiler to something else, > > this system breaks down. I'm not sure there is a good solution to > > that problem. But unpacking the kernel-source tar ball and doing > > a build should work as long as you have gcc-3.3 installed, > > which is a recomendation of the package. > > Well, if it fails when building a module I will just go and bug the > maintaner for that module source. ;-)
Thats pretty much what I was thinking needs to happen. Lets see how it goes. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
