>>> On 19.01.16 at 20:24, wrote:
> On 1/19/16 2:48 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.01.16 at 18:21, wrote:
>>> On 1/18/16 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:53, wrote:
> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
> binutils need to be suppor
On 1/19/16 2:48 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.01.16 at 18:21, wrote:
>> On 1/18/16 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.01.16 at 17:53, wrote:
To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version
>>> On 18.01.16 at 18:21, wrote:
> On 1/18/16 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.01.16 at 17:53, wrote:
>>> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
>>> binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
>>> binutils that had to be supported wa
On 1/18/16 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.01.16 at 17:53, wrote:
>> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
>> binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
>> binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
>> http://lists.xenprojec
>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:53, wrote:
> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
> binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
> binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg0060
To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg00609.html
as 2.17. Knowing that Jan got these
