Re: Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)

[sury.ondrej@globe.cz (Ondřej Surý)]

Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

> From my point of view, alternatives are dangerous for the
> compiler. In bug reports it's difficult to see the compiler
> used. Therefore if you need a special version of the compiler, name it 
> directly.

I agree.  But I offer alternative solution: gcc -V 2.91.66 is better than
alternatives, because it can be used just by those who knows.

gcc 2.91.66 is needed for example for XFS enabled kernel.  (But that is
special case and it could be easily solved by compiling egcs by hand.)

-- 
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@globe.cz>         Globe Internet s.r.o. http://globe.cz/
Tel: +420235365000   Fax: +420235365009         Pláničkova 1, 162 00 Praha 6
Mob: +420605204544   ICQ: 24944126             Mapa: http://globe.namape.cz/
GPG fingerprint:          CC91 8F02 8CDE 911A 933F  AE52 F4E6 6A7C C20D F273