On 02.02 Hans Reiser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Run a small shell check and let it fail if the shell stuff errors.
> >
> > The fragment you want is
> >
> > if [ -e /bin/rpm ]; then
> > X=`rpm -q gcc`
> > if [ "$X" = "gcc-2.96-54" ]; then
> > echo "*** GCC 2.96-54 will miscompile Reiserfs. Please
> update your compiler"
> > echo "See http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHBA-2000-132.html"
> > exit 255
> > fi
> > fi
> Ok, thanks Alan, we'll use it, Yura, write something resembling or equal to
> this, test it, and check it into our CVS branch.
>
Please, do not do so. That depends on the PACKAGE name and version, and there
is no standard way of versioning a patched gcc.
The -54 is a RH'ism, for example Mandrake Cooker includes patches from
different sources, and gcc is versioned like
werewolf:~# rpm -q gcc
gcc-2.96-0.33mdk
and ChangeLog is:
werewolf:~# rpm -q --changelog gcc
* Mon Jan 15 2001 David BAUDENS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.96-0.33mdk
- Fix build on PPC
* Mon Jan 15 2001 Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.96-0.32mdk
- Try to fix when alternatives is broken in %post.
- Merge with RH package (rel70) of Jakub :
^^^^^^^
..
so it suits a 2.96-70 gcc.
--
J.A. Magallon $> cd pub
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $> more beer
Linux werewolf 2.4.1-ac1 #2 SMP Fri Feb 2 00:19:04 CET 2001 i686
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
