Re: Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)
On Mar 16, Ondøej Surý (sury.ondrej@globe.cz) wrote:
> 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.
Is the -V option supported under Debian at all? AFAIK, if you install
another version of gcc it will create a conflict at the package level.
Is that correct? Maybe we should look into how to support that option
directly, e.g., by having packages for different versions, e.g.,
gcc295, gcc291. I've seen gcc272, why not for others? (I suspect I
may have just brought up a topic that has been rehashed many times
before, but I haven't seen the discussion, so forgive me if that is
the case.)
> 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.)
>
> --
> Ondøej Surý <ondrej@globe.cz> Globe Internet s.r.o. http://globe.cz/
> Tel: +420235365000 Fax: +420235365009 Plánièkova 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
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Neil L. Roeth
neil@occamsrazor.net
Reply to: