Re: more binutils?

To: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cc: Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net>, debian-68k@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: more binutils?
From: "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:20:24 +0200
Message-id: <20070612162024.GA6719@chumley.earth.sol>
Mail-followup-to: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>, Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net>, debian-68k@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0706121724230.637@om.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
References: <20070611223502.GA7071@marenka.net> <20070612133349.GD17371@marenka.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0706121724230.637@om.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> 
> Nope - we should perhaps verify it's a real regression first. Do you have
> a quick test case available? Does anyone have the previous known good
> version of binutils around?

Which is a good version? My apt-cache/proxy have these versions:

binutils_2.17-2+b2_m68k.deb
binutils-dev_2.17-2+b2_m68k.deb
binutils_2.17-3_m68k.deb
binutils-dev_2.17-3_m68k.deb
binutils_2.17cvs20070426-3_m68k.deb
binutils_2.17cvs20070426-6_m68k.deb
binutils_2.17cvs20070426-8_m68k.deb

Christian

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: more binutils?
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
- Re: more binutils?
  - From: Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net>

References:
- missing __init_array_start, __init_array_end in __libc_csu_init
  - From: Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net>
- more binutils?
  - From: Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net>
- Re: more binutils?
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>

Prev by Date: Re: more binutils?
Next by Date: Re: netfilter unavailable
Previous by thread: Re: more binutils?
Next by thread: Re: more binutils?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread