Re: Kernel 2.4.x compilation problem continued...

[Andy Taylor <andy@vicnet.net.au>]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:10:17 +0100
Holger Paschke <hpaschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> The solution I had not yet tested is the downgrading of binutils. I
> haven't found the version I mentioned earlier in the debian pools, so I
> will perhaps go for the version, I have on woody-CDs, I bought a month
> ago. But I don't know, if that will break some dependencies... thus
> requiring further downgrading of other parts.

This worked for me (downgrading binutils to 2.11.92.0.10-4).  Here is the relevant changelog from binutils (2.11.92.0.12.3-3)...

  * Thought about reverting the patch that showed the
    errors in the kernel source, but the changes since
    are extensive and necessary.  It would also put
    binutils right back into an unknown state from a
    stability standpoint, and I'm unwilling to allow that
    to happen this close to release.  It's basically a
    "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation, so
    I'm sticking with current behaviour, which is at
    least known behaviour at this point.

If you can't get a suitable version, I can upload the 2.11.92.0.10-4 deb to my ftp site.  However, I only have the binary package and not the source, if you're worried about the integrity of this package ( you have no way of knowing if I can be trusted :) ).  E-mail me if you wish me to do this, anyway, and I'll e-mail you the link.

As far as other dependencies go, the packages on my system (mostly latest sid) happily coexist.  The dependencies (between the packages I have installed, anyway) are...

binutils ...
  is recommended/depended upon by:
    kernel-source-2.4.16
    lintian
    debhelper
    kernel-source-2.2.19
    dpkg-dev
    chkrootkit
    gcc-3.0
    gcc-2.95
    binutils-dev
  recommends/depends upon:
    libc6(>=2.2.4-4)

...and you can see there are no versioned dependencies.  Your CD version may well be OK.

Andy