On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote: > that's some kind of misinformation. 2.95.4 is derived from 2.95.3, > following the gcc-2_95-branch on CVS.
ok, accepted, see my previous posting. i really have nothing against 2.95.4 as such... > It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck somewhere. > Questions about 2.95.4 on the gcc mailing list remain unanswered. there even isn't a source distribution of 2.95.4 on the gcc site... > And this recommendation doesn't hold for all architectures supported > by Debian ... for the installed kernel on my debian systems i most of the time use the current gcc package from stable or testing and never had any problems. the whole point really was that i wanted to make live easier for the kernel development people by sticking as tightly as possible to the requirements when working with the development kernel. if i get some strange error messages, i want to be sure that i have the right toolchain working, so i don't go chasing shadows around. just in case, hypothetically, in case shit happens. ok, lets stop this discussion here, if we can agree on the following: -gcc 2.95.4 is all right, not based on 2.95.2 and may be used for kernel compilation, stuff and everything. -there is no debian-packaged gcc 2.95.3 for paranoid kernel development explorers and bugscouts ;-) -this is not really a problem. -- peter koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>