On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:27:27PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm quite confident that the release team and/or gcc maintainers will
> >> agree that 'is needed to compile 2.4 kernels' is a big enough reason to
> >> keep some gcc version around if Debian gets to the point to decide
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
>>> I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
>>> it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
>>> will be
On Monday 11 July 2005 22.18, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
> >> I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
> >> it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
> >> will be omit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
>> I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
>> it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
>> will be omitted from et
On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
> I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
> it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
> will be omitted from etch.
I'm quite confident that the release team and/or gcc maintainers will agree
that 'is needed t
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
>
> He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
Sorry, my bad. Must learn to read more carefully.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:52:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > > It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> > > both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> > > about it in my books.
>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> > both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> > about it in my books.
>
> Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
Sort of. 2.4 kernel
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
> Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not d
Brian May writes:
> > "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
> Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
> Matthi
> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
Matthias> on any other C++ library bes
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Matthias Klose told:
> This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Do we have to put
CFLAGS += -Wno-pointer-sign
by default to each rules file?
Elimar
--
Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
can be found t
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo S
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> >
> > This is of course one of the reasons why user
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
2.2 went also in deep freeze for
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:23AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 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,
> > > > >>
> > > >
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
> > > >>
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by upstream is still 2.95.
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
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
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
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:07:23AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Junichi Uekawa writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> >
> > Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
>
> No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
I have added this as a buil
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:
>> h
Junichi Uekawa writes:
> Hi,
>
> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
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
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
regards,
junichi
This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
(for g77 and gpc to 3.4, these are not supported in 4.0) on all
architectures. The GCC-4.0 version used is taken from the GCC 4.0
branch (something that will likely become the 4.0.1 release candidate
3). The switch to 4.0 (instead t
29 matches
Mail list logo
