On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> > If it's RH gcc-2.96, then you can bugzilla it (http://bugzilla.redhat.com),
> > but given that 3.0 is out it probably won't get fixed in 2.96.
>
> In the past, RedHat has always released three minor versions of each
> major -- i.e. 5.0, 5.1, 5.2; 6.0, 6.1, 6.2. If RedHat decides to release a
> version 7.2 of their distribution, it *will* ship with 2.96 -- they won't
> break binary compatiblity within a major release series.
>
> I'm not saying XFS development effort should be directed at 2.96, but I
> don't think it's going to go away just yet.
If we can support 2.91.66 2.95.3/4 and 3.0 and leave 2.96 for what it is
worth. If this policy is maintained 2.91.66 (kgcc) will also still be
available. So we can point to them to this package instead.
We only now that there are more systems out there with a "older" gcc then
redhat 7.x systems with 2.96. Systems will be released with 3.0 fairly
soon I think which will mean that it is "available" for all the other
distro's.
Speaking off, can't we just build in the default compiler selection logic
that is included in the kbuild script that is included in default kernels?
This one selects kgcc if it is installed on the system and leaves all the
other systems out there like SuSe, Debian, Slackware alone and selects gcc
if there is no other installed.
If that does happen we will not be bitten by accidentally compiling the
kernel with 2.96 even when you don't want it. (it even happens to me).
> (Please, no beating of the 2.96-is-bad dead horse.)
If we can change the selection process it does not directly matter. If you
do want to build it with something newer they will now where to find it.
Cheerio
Seth
ps: New machine is in, will update FAQ soon. and nerwer kernels compile a
lot faster too ;-)
|