Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1

Måns Rullgård
2013-09-26T22:24:15Z

Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> writes:

> On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> 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?

--
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com