Siggy responsibe for gcc/libc/libg++?
On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, David Engel wrote:
> > If they're not already claimed, I would be interested in taking them over.
> > In fact, I've got gcc 2.7.2 already packaged up (Ian Murdock's diffs to
> > 2.6.3 applied flawlessly over 2.7.2).
> ELF or a.out? I think Siggy (?) may have claimed gcc and possibly
> libc but he was been waiting to get his net connection upgraded before
> doing anything. While that's been happening, I'm trying my best to
> get various development packages updated to ELF. I will be uploading
> new gcc and binutils packages tonight or tomorrow.
I changed the header on the assumption that if Siggy has not in fact
claimed these three that he will certainly be motivated to read it and
speak up.
As far as binary format, ELF, of course. I thought Siggy had just claimed
ncurses, but I hardly pretend to be the most alert person around. Maybe
Ian Murdock knows?
I'd be more than willing to do gcc for an indefinite time span, if that
would free you up for more stuff. My real impetus for all this work,
though, was just to get a working copy of the latest libg++, but that
sort of forces one to get all three working. libc is a real (expletive
deleted).
> > I had been thinking, though, that it might be "best" (whatever that means)
> > to change the debian.rules so that we actually get the self-compiled &
> > tested compiler in our package.
> The easiest way to do this is simply to build with the old compiler,
> install the new compiler and then rebuild with the new compiler.
Well, I just altered the debian.rules so that it did multiple stages
automatically. I can see how someone might think badly of the 60MB this
chews up, though.
Mike.
--
"I'm a dinosaur. Somebody's digging my bones."
Reply to: