On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with
> gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that
> when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration
> and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for
> the actual build.
That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It
didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I
couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without
resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it.
> I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default
> and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your
> environment before running the build.
Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3
present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing
the environment and monkeying up the works.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
| -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpVmcRu7ve5O.pgp
Description: PGP signature