Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:51:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:25:27 -0400
> Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> wrote:
> > I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to
> > a problem!
>
> A failed kernel compile when trying to bring stability to a machine
> constitutes as a problem in my book.
>
> > I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check
> > the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with?
>
> Given that I told it to build with 2.95 and it failed in the same manner
> as with 3.3 but when I installed 2.95 from Woody which ONLY installs 2.95 it
> succeeded I, quite frankly, don't care if it compiled with 1.10.0.101.10.2.
> 2.95 should install what it says it installs, 2.95. Debian has version
> numbers in the names for a reason and that reason being when people NEED the
> previous version and not to upgrade to the current one.
>
> See the whole thread about exim vs exim4 as reference.
And you're missing the point.
Installing gcc-2.95 does install GCC 2.95.
What else it installs is irrelevant. It installs a particular version
of glibc that isn't gcc 2.95, too.
Please stop crusading, and find out what your kernel build actually
did. Because it works just fine for all the rest of us.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: