Re: gcc-2.95.3
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> that's some kind of misinformation. 2.95.4 is derived from 2.95.3,
> following the gcc-2_95-branch on CVS.
ok, accepted, see my previous posting. i really have nothing against
2.95.4 as such...
> It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck somewhere.
> Questions about 2.95.4 on the gcc mailing list remain unanswered.
there even isn't a source distribution of 2.95.4 on the gcc site...
> And this recommendation doesn't hold for all architectures supported
> by Debian ...
for the installed kernel on my debian systems i most of the time use the
current gcc package from stable or testing and never had any problems.
the whole point really was that i wanted to make live easier for the
kernel development people by sticking as tightly as possible to the
requirements when working with the development kernel. if i get some strange
error messages, i want to be sure that i have the right toolchain working,
so i don't go chasing shadows around. just in case, hypothetically, in case
shit happens.
ok, lets stop this discussion here, if we can agree on the following:
-gcc 2.95.4 is all right, not based on 2.95.2 and may be used for kernel
compilation, stuff and everything.
-there is no debian-packaged gcc 2.95.3 for paranoid kernel development
explorers and bugscouts ;-)
-this is not really a problem.
--
peter koellner <peter@mezzo.net>
Reply to: