xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS 1.2pre2 available

To: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS 1.2pre2 available
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:06:27 +0100
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3DB7BDB6.680984F@ch.sauter-bc.com>; from simon.matter@ch.sauter-bc.com on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:30:30AM +0200
References: <1035411747.1231.7.camel@rose.americas.sgi.com> <3DB7BDB6.680984F@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> Russell Cattelan schrieb:
> > 
> > Well actually it's been there since Friday but not all the rpm's were
> > built.
> > 
> > Thanks to Christoph the RH rpm's are not based off of the 2.4.18-17
> > build from RedHat.
> 
> Just to stop my own confusion: The source RPM of the RedHat 7.x and 8.0
> kernel RPMs are exactly the same, only the release version differs. Of
> course, build environment is very different between 7.x and 8.0, so
> binaries are different.
> 
> My question: Since used compiler versions were 'non standard' with older
> XFS releases, are there any issued when compiling the source RPM on
> RedHat 7.x, because it's targeted at 8.0, I guess. Or is it meant to
> work on 7.x and 8.0?

I got an internal compiler error when compiling recent xfs versions
with the original gcc of rh 7.3, I guess it's fixed with the latest
errata.  The gcc 3.2-compiled rpm works fine with rh7.x - it's
just not self-hosted in that case.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>