> I think he was talking about building cross-compilers on the m68k platform,
> not
> about cross-compilers to generate m68k binaries.
Yes, I understood the same. I do use binutils-m68k on i686 and find it
convenient but I also agree that building cross-binutils for all archs
on all archs (even t
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Meelis Roos wrote:
> CCC> If there are any objections, please feel free to email me. I don't plan
> CCC> on keeping them buried forever...only until a better way is found to
> CCC> generate them in a policy-compliant manner and also in manner that
> CCC> won't impact slower/ol
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Excellent! The long binutils compiles were triggering a bug in the Hurd,
> causing a crash, so I had to remove it from the autobuilder. I will
> add it back in now.
Thanks for letting me know this. All the more reason to get
cross-compiling situated a
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:04:31PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I'm removing the cross-compiler patches to debian/rules, etc. as
> of the upcoming 2.11.90.0.5-1. Until we get a better method for compiling
> these, I'd rather not have the packages available. As it stands, it takes
> se
Just wanted to announce this...
I'm removing the cross-compiler patches to debian/rules, etc. as
of the upcoming 2.11.90.0.5-1. Until we get a better method for compiling
these, I'd rather not have the packages available. As it stands, it takes
several hours to build binutils and all of the cro
5 matches
Mail list logo
