From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] build: specify minimum versions of make and binutils Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:59:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1455188397.814.36.camel@citrix.com> References: <1453936359-10115-1-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com> <56AA1C8502000078000CC01A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1453986140.26591.81.camel@citrix.com> <56AA29F502000078000CC08E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56BB9F69.5030004@citrix.com> <56BC73AC02000078000D0EE6@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56BC73AC02000078000D0EE6@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper Cc: Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan , KeirFraser , Doug Goldstein , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 03:42 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > I think it is quite relevant which version is to be picked: Anything > older no-one could legitimately report issues against (and I would > very much like to continue to be able to submit build fixes I find > necessary on those two old boxes I keep for a reason), while > stating something too old which even today we don't successfully > build with would be pretty odd. So lets start with, for x86 whatever the older of the versions on the two boxes you refer to above and for ARM gcc 4.8 and binutils 2.24, which corresponds to what I happen to use for both arm32 and arm64 in my development environment. Those are IMHO reasonable starting points but obviously they aren't set in stone and can be easily adjusted later if necessary. Ian.