From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mans@mansr.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:24:07 +0100 Subject: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 In-Reply-To: <1380154255.1974.92@driftwood> (Rob Landley's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:10:55 -0500") References: <1380154255.1974.92@driftwood> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Rob Landley writes: > On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Rob Landley writes: >> >> > On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> >> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer >> >> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex. >> > >> > Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on >> > endless new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is >> > regression testing against them, not because they actually add >> > anything. >> >> Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in >> the arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism? > > If you require current gnome and drop support for older versions (and > implicitly all other desktops), people start writing stuff that depends > on systemd. It doesn't matter if the feature you abandoned support for > the past 10 years of everthing else for wasn't itself provided by > systemd. Are you saying current binutils depends on gnome and/or systemd? -- M?ns Rullg?rd mans at mansr.com