Re: Kernel compilation and gcc272
Raul Miller writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 02:47:14PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > I've been playing a little bit lately with kernel, and kernel patches
> > (uploaded packaged kdb patch yesterday), and this gave me the idea of
> > trying to solve the gcc-2.95/gcc-2.7.2 problem.
>
> I guess I've never considered this a serious problem.
Well, if a stable kernel does not compile with the standard
compiler, I suspect we are to receive many bugs against the compiler,
and the kernel folks may receive their own part.
As the problem is known, and we have some time to think about it
before release, I consider it myself quite serious.
As an example, I'm used since quite some time now to just run
"make-kpkg kernel_image" on every new kernel I just want to install,
and I don't expect this to stop working in the next release.
Most generally, I don't expect *anything* to *require* a systematic
"option" (especially non trivial) to get a correct behaviour.
> When I want to use a different compiler and I don't feel like specifying
> CC, I just use the altgcc trick: put some directory at the front of my
> path where gcc is the right compiler.
Well, this doesn't really solve the problem of making people aware of
the fact they should use gcc272 and not gcc.
I must confess my proposal does not fully address this as well. Maybe
a mean of specifying that a patch is mandatory (under certain
conditions ?) would be needed from kernel-package ?
People not using kernel-package would not have automatic patch
application, but if they choosed to use the traditional method, well,
it's their choice, and the priority of the kernel-patch-2.2.x-i386
package (or whatever name we would choose) would be their to make them
think about the problem.
--
Yann Dirson | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
<ydirson@multimania.com> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.multimania.com/ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: