Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)
On Mar 15, Matthias Klose (doko@cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
> Your argument that 2.91.66 is recommended to build 2.4 kernels is
> partially wrong. At least for architecures alpha, powerpc, sparc,
> mips, (hppa, s390, ...) it's not used (please correct me, if I am
> wrong).
>
> As Ray pointed out, gcc-2.95.3 seems to be capable to build usable 2.4
> kernels. Unfortunately this is not yet released (we use the test5
> release), so you won't get a recommendation from the kernel developers
> to use an unreleased compiler.
I guess you're speaking to the original poster here, I don't want it
for kernels, I just want it to build A+.
> Neil L. Roeth writes:
> > On Mar 13, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn (cristian.ionescu-idbohrn@axis.com) wrote:
> > > Package: wnpp
> > > Severity: important
> > >
> > > Cheers Ray,
> > >
> > > 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? Would anyone with better understanding of this
> > > care to comment?
>
> >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.
Sounds good to me, but I don't know how to do the rename when
installing from a slink package. There were lots of conflicts with
various libraries, too, when I attempted it.
> > I, too, would like to see egcs 1.1.2 (2.91.66) in potato. I recently
> > had to compile a program that would compile with that, but not with
> > 2.95.2, and when I tried to install the slink package it told me it
> > conflicted with the installed gcc (obviously).
>
> A comparision against 2.95.2 isn't useful. Compare it with 2.95.3.
The program won't compile under 2.95.2, why would you expect it to
work under 2.95.3?
> To get a version for potato, fetch
>
> http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc/potato/
>
> (There are still a few installation bugs in the -doc packages)
>
> > I ended up building
> > egcs the old-fashiond way in /usr/local/ and resetting the path
> > temporarily when compiling the other program. Is there an easy way to
> > install Debian packages to a different destination than their default?
> > And tell it to go ahead and install there even if the package
> > conflicts with another?
>
> dpkg -x <package> <dir> and setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Thanks!
> > You can read about building and installing A+ on a Debian system at
> > http://www.aplusdev.org.
>
> These are instructions to build on a potato system. You won't solve
> these issues with a compiler uploaded to unstable.
I said "I, too, would like to see egcs 1.1.2 (2.91.66) in potato". I
guess woody would be helpful to me, too.
^^^^^^
> As a member of the gcc packaging group I don't like the idea to
> include egcs-1.1.2 in woody again.
>
> - Please wait until gcc-2.95.3 is finally released and you can get a
> recommendation for kernel builds.
>
> - If egcs is still needed, it shouldn't use alternatives.
>
> - egcs should only be built for architectures that need it (currently
> i386, maybe m68k).
See my reply to Adrian following this.
--
Neil L. Roeth
neil@occamsrazor.net
Reply to: