Re: binutils in corona and next Aurora release?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:56:17AM +0200, Christian Joensson wrote:
> I'd just like to put an opinion forward here...
> 
> I've been using corona with updates a while now and I mainly keep an
> eye on binutils and gcc developments... To my opinion, we need
> binutils newer then 2.16.1 on sparc systems, even for gcc 3.4 and gcc
> 4.0. I have been using binutils-2.16.91.0.2-4 from rawhide with great
> experience. The only thing to consider is the c++filt issues between
> gcc and binutils packages... handlable.
> 
> I am fully aware that corona and to my understanding, the coming
> Aurora release will be based on FC3... I am also aware that FC4 has
> binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2... So, if we'd adhere to my idea of basing
> corona (and the next Aurora release) on binutils-2.16.91.0.2-4, or
> newer, that'd be incosistent... but to me, that's kinda like, hmm, the
> packages at hand simply don't do the jopb good enough, there's better
> upstream... heck, let's go for it.
> 
> So, there, it's done.

For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that aurora already has
a precedent: rpm. So if there are really no outstanding issues with
the new binutils, why not?

Regards,

-- 
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rathann*at*icm.edu.pl>
Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling
Warsaw University  |  http://www.icm.edu.pl  |  tel. +48 (22) 5540810
_______________________________________________
Aurora-sparc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-devel
Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html