Re: Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 23:35:41 +0100, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> Surely there's another, easier, way instead of chasing and digging in
> slink dists after old egcs package versions, and elsewhere after
> patches, and still being unsure if one can pull everything through.
> We have the 'alternatives'. Cannot that be used to add one more compiler
> to the family?
Egcs 1.1.2 could simply be installed as /usr/bin/egcc; the alternatives
mechanism isn't even needed (unless you want to have a "kgcc" symlink).
> Why not listen to the kernel hackers recommendations man make use of
> that blasted egcs compiler for kernel stability. Why would they bother
> making recommendations like this if it didn't matter.
IMHO they're over-erring on the side of caution. I've been using 2.4.x-acy
kernels compiled with gcc 2.95.3 without any problems, as have many others.
> Is there a big effort involved?
Not much; my diff provides a reasonable starting point. Personally, I have
limited time available to work on Debian and I'd rather spend that time
caring for my current packages than on a package that is only needed in a
very few cases.
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan