Re: CD.

["Christian T. Steigies" <exp114@physik.uni-kiel.de>]

On 15 Jan 1998, Brederlow wrote:

> Nope, we just recompile the packages as they are. It's still faster
> afterwards. The optimisation from egcs is better than gcc.
why not optimize for 060? It'll be even faster then... *NOT*
or make a version each for 020, 030, 040, 060 *NEITHER*
forget ecgs and try gcc280. gee, how long will it take you to recompile
_everything_ with gcc280? ;-)
 
> Sources should compile, but they don't more often that I like. Most
> Packages that broke on the first pass missed dependencies and couldn't 
> find include files. Thats my fault (or fault of missing sourcecode
even better when you create packages with mixed dependencies, did that too
with ncurses, it needs a trick not to fall into that trap (thx james)
 
> function reached'). Pointing out those warnings to the maintainer can
> help to kill bugs.
do you?
 
> > the kernel. Linus warns against using egcs for kernel builds. 
> 
> Through egcs I was able to track some bugs in my code and one bug in
> the kernel. That alone makes a reason to recompile with egcs.
_if_ you build the final kernel with gcc... read again what he said:
> > the kernel. Linus warns against using egcs for kernel builds. 
he should know better than you.
 
Ciao,
Christian. (AFK for a month...)


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .