From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7KHOwEC003491 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:24:58 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.3/Submit) id g7KHOwTp003490 for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:24:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from post.webmailer.de (natwar.webmailer.de [192.67.198.70]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g7KHOqEC003481 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:24:52 -0700 Received: from excalibur.cologne.de (p50850BF8.dip.t-dialin.net [80.133.11.248]) by post.webmailer.de (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06291 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:27:42 +0200 (MEST) Received: from karsten by excalibur.cologne.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hCmq-0000JV-00 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:27:24 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:27:24 +0200 From: Karsten Merker To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: New binutils for kernel Message-ID: <20020820172724.GA599@excalibur.cologne.de> Mail-Followup-To: Karsten Merker , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com References: <20020819171238.A7457@linux-mips.org> <20020820162959.A26852@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020820162959.A26852@linux-mips.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-No-Archive: yes X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote: [requiring binutils 2.13]] > Yep. It won't hurt most of us kernel hackers very much but in particular > the distribution people may want to comment. Well, I guess that covers me :-). Debian Woody, the current stable Debian release (AFAIK the only full-blown distribution for Linux/mips that targets at "normal users" and not only at developers) ships with binutils 2.12.90.0.1. As the Debian policy requires that no new program versions are to be introduced for the stable release, Debian will not be able to switch to binutils 2.13 there. Bugfixes for packages in the release are accepted, but not new upstream versions; so to get any fixes in, they would need to be backported to binutils 2.12. For the unstable distribution (currently binutils 2.12.90.0.15), switching to binutils 2.13 should IMHO be possible in a reasonable timeframe, if it does not break other things. Caveat: as Debian requires all 11 released architectures to be in sync, any new version would have to work properly on _all_ supported platforms. The decision about introducing a new version of a package into Debian is taken by the package maintainer, so I am going to ask him about his plans. Regards, Karsten -- #include Nach Paragraph 28 Abs. 3 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung oder Uebermittlung meiner Daten fuer Werbezwecke oder fuer die Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.