Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Which in unstable is 3.3, a completely different version. Which in turns requires gcc 3.3. Package: gcc [SNIP] Depends: cpp (= 3:3.3-1), gcc-3.3 (= 1:3.3-0pre9), cpp-3.3 (= 1:3.3-0pre9) So saying that 2.95 requires 3.3 is not a stretch at all because it does through dependancies. Package: gcc Version: 2:2.95.4-14 Depends: cpp (= 2:2.95.4-14), gcc-2.95, cpp-2.95 apt-get install gcc=2:2.95.4-14 What is the problem? -- Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 -- Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid Linux 2.4.21 You're just jealous because I'm a real freak and you have to wear a mask. --Penguin (Batman Returns)
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
I demand that Joe Wreschnig may or may not have written... On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:48, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote: You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be of no consequence whatsoever. It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo. Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired, and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary functionality. For most people, disks are cheap. Time isn't. Just out of interest, what are your assumptions wrt costs associated with downloading? -- | Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington, | woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland | RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army | URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/ (PGP 2.6, GPG keys) The only way to make something foolproof is to keep it away from fools.
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:36:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) Don't you know your O doesn't matter, only Steve's? I'm pretty accustomed to my O mattering only to me. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine Debian GNU/Linux |where religious beliefs end and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |mental illness begins. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Elaine Cassel pgp7XsqWWaHkh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: I don't take kindly to software installing other software without a clear need and there simply was no clear need. Well, now, why don'tcha run 'em outta town, Tex? (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpGEVxvsfdCl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:26:12 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) One problem doesn't excuse the other. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpUqL26bbldl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) Don't you know your O doesn't matter, only Steve's?
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:36:45 -0500 (CDT) Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) Don't you know your O doesn't matter, only Steve's? This isn't a matter of opinion. Simple test. When you install the following packages what do you get? exim: bind: python2.2: kernel-image-2.2.20: gcc-2.95: Now, play the old kid's game. One of these is not like the other, one of these does not belong... The one that doesn't belong is the one that installs a version of software *other* than what was requested. The one that doesn't belong is the one that does something contrary to every other package out there. That isn't an opinion. That is fact. That is quantifiable. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpLHvY6eKSdF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:26:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: I don't take kindly to software installing other software without a clear need and there simply was no clear need. Well, now, why don'tcha run 'em outta town, Tex? (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/kernel/linux-2.4.21$ grep -n gcc Makefile 19:HOSTCC = gcc 30:CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc There is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] that sollution for 2.4.x kernels (x=20) is perl -pi.bak -e 's/gcc/gcc-2.95/' Makefile Regards Artur -- http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpjCIqsQM1Px.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:06AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Now, play the old kid's game. One of these is not like the other, one of these does not belong... The one that doesn't belong is the one that installs a version of software *other* than what was requested. The one that doesn't belong is the one that does something contrary to every other package out there. That isn't an opinion. That is fact. That is quantifiable. However, gcc-2.95 needs to install /usr/bin/gcc or it isn't much use. The alternative to having a base gcc package is to use dpkg-managed alternatives; but alternatives are flaky and don't fulfil the objective of being able to ensure with some degree of surety that buildds and developers are using a more or less consistent version of gcc. This has been discussed in detail on debian-gcc many times. Once you have a base gcc package as we do, it's not much use without an actual compiler. Thus, while the situation isn't optimal, I can't see a better way. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus, while the situation isn't optimal, I can't see a better way. Thank you. In the past 3 days you're the first person to actually explain why things are contrary to how every other package is instead of trying to brow-beat me with the same nonsense over and over. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgp2ZbxTmmPTN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: [...] However, gcc-2.95 needs to install /usr/bin/gcc or it isn't much use. Actually... What exactly does gcc-2.95 need it for? /usr/bin/gcc is a straight link to gcc-3.3 after all. -- Micha Politowski -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warning: this is a memetically modified message pgpAP9VoOXWfA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Hi, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:26:12 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.)
One problem doesn't excuse the other.
So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
of no consequence whatsoever. If gcc-2.95 hadn't pulled in gcc which
pulled in gcc-3.3, you'd've got _no_ gcc. That strikes me as being
singularly unhelpful.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
It looks like it's up to me to save our skins. Get into that garbage chute,
flyboy!
-- Princess Leia Organa
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200 Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem? By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently! Lemme put it this way: In no other package that I am aware of does installing an older version require installing a NEWER version to work! You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be of no consequence whatsoever. And you don't see a problem with that? Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9, Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!? Uh, because I didn't ask for them to be installed? If gcc-2.95 hadn't pulled in gcc which pulled in gcc-3.3, you'd've got _no_ gcc. That strikes me as being singularly unhelpful. Ok... why? Imagine that, gcc-2.95 never worked in the past because it needed 3.3 to even be installed? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpczxKBFwI0T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:06:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200 Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem? By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently! Yes, it is too much to ask, because it is impossible to explain the reason for something which isn't so. gcc 2.95 doesn't require gcc 3.3, it just requires some version of the 'gcc' package with a version number = 1:2.95.3-2. A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). -- Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:19:59 +0100 You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9, Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!? Uh, because I didn't ask for them to be installed? You are beginning to rave. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it is too much to ask, because it is impossible to explain the reason for something which isn't so. gcc 2.95 doesn't require gcc 3.3, it just requires some version of the 'gcc' package with a version number = 1:2.95.3-2. Which in unstable is 3.3, a completely different version. Which in turns requires gcc 3.3. Package: gcc [SNIP] Depends: cpp (= 3:3.3-1), gcc-3.3 (= 1:3.3-0pre9), cpp-3.3 (= 1:3.3-0pre9) So saying that 2.95 requires 3.3 is not a stretch at all because it does through dependancies. A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3! Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9, Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!? Uh, because I didn't ask for them to be installed? You are beginning to rave. Well, when faced with the idiocy above where noone else seems to see the problem where when one version is asked for and a completely different version is installed I think anyone would rave. It isn't that hard a concept to grasp. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpEwdvhc9uXR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3! You haven't listened. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote: You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be of no consequence whatsoever. It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3! Have you ever heard of alternatives? If 2 packages are installed, both providing the same alternative, it's up to you to decide which is used. I'm not saying that /usr/bin/gcc is managed by alternatives, or should be. I'm just saying the use case is the same. If you want gcc-2.95, instead of the default gcc(whatever it is), then call gcc-2.95 directly.
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't listened. You've not said anything worth listening to. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpYDwXPJGa8f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:26:06 -0500 (CDT) Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever heard of alternatives? If 2 packages are installed, both providing the same alternative, it's up to you to decide which is used. Yes, I have. I've used it quite a bit. I'm not saying that /usr/bin/gcc is managed by alternatives, or should be. I'm just saying the use case is the same. No, it is not. If you want gcc-2.95, instead of the default gcc(whatever it is), then call gcc-2.95 directly. The difference is, as I pointed out to someone else privately, that if I install, say, nvi it can be called as vi using /etc/alternatives. It does not, however, depend on a vi package which contains a symlink which, to be fulfilled, depends on *another* vi package (vim, elvis, elvis-tiny) to be satisfied. When I install anything which is managed by /etc/alternatives other, potentially incompatible, versions of similar or the same software is not installed. No, I get what I asked for and ONLY what I asked for. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpCUjE9Guyf9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't listened. You've not said anything worth listening to. *plonk* -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't listened. You've not said anything worth listening to. I'v got popcorn. Who's got the beer?
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:48, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote: You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be of no consequence whatsoever. It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo. Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired, and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary functionality. For most people, disks are cheap. Time isn't. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:48:12PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote: You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be of no consequence whatsoever. It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo. I certainly hope they aren't hit by the door on the way out. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:45:44 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't listened. You've not said anything worth listening to. *plonk* Ah, yes, the sound of reality hitting a closed mind who can't deal with people who ask questions and actually provide reasonable evidence on why their questions are valid. I'm sorry, Matt, that you can't explain it without resorting to insults. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpcrcoZzRWpc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired, and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary functionality. ECUSE me? Care to explain how this has any relevance at all? gcc-2.95 is going to somehow break without a SYMLINK to 3.3? It's going to require a RECOMPILE because a SYMLINK TO A COMPLETELY UNRELATED VERSION ISN'T PRESENT!? Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds? Yes, you're going to spend 20 hours recompiling for the require functionality because... well... a symlink was missing that would have forced another unrelated package to be installed. Sorry. I've spend time trying to get it to do what I want and amazingly enough, once there, I had the functionality I wanted. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpBbM89C1hRj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Steve Lamb writes: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3! so maybe you have found a bug (severity normal). File one, and maybe it will get fixed. Well, when faced with the idiocy above where noone else seems to see the problem where when one version is asked for and a completely different version is installed I think anyone would rave. It isn't that hard a concept to grasp. it's difficult to take you seriously if you begin a discussion in such a tone. you should know that discussions heat up on debian-devel ... Matthias
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). -- Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:19:59 +0100 You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. I'd love it if someone could explain the problem in a bit more detail for me. I was bitten by this kernel/gcc issue myself, and having looked at those bug reports I'm still not clear what was happening, other than that gcc-2.95 was somehow breaking g++/libstdc++ in testing. Just curious. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 17:01, Steve Lamb wrote: On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired, and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary functionality. ECUSE me? Care to explain how this has any relevance at all? gcc-2.95 is going to somehow break without a SYMLINK to 3.3? It's going to require a RECOMPILE because a SYMLINK TO A COMPLETELY UNRELATED VERSION ISN'T PRESENT!? First, calm down. You found a bug in the kernel build system, which happens to be triggered by some otherwise innocuous behavior that Debian's GCC package has had for 2.5 years. Perhaps the Debian package is installing GCC 3.3 unneededly. This is a wishlist bug against the GCC package, then. Or perhaps you should've emailed the GCC maintainer before filing it, asking him if there was a good reason for this behavior. At this point, you're blowing up about what is an almost non-issue, with a trivial fix. It would be nice to get GCC 2.95 to stop depending on GCC 3.3; it might even be possible (I haven't looked at #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, or #85578, so it may or may not be). But even if it is, you've blown your chances of this thread ever achieving anything, I think. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:38:48PM +0200, Micha? Politowski wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: However, gcc-2.95 needs to install /usr/bin/gcc or it isn't much use. Actually... What exactly does gcc-2.95 need it for? /usr/bin/gcc is a straight link to gcc-3.3 after all. Hm. Actually, I admit to not being entirely sure. It wouldn't solve Steve's problem if that dependency were removed either, though, although it would perhaps make it a bit more obvious when you're trying to compile something with gcc-2.95 and it calls the nonexistent gcc. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on xxx (= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, #85578. * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3! Actually, that one isn't unique: $ sudo apt-get install python2.1 [...] $ python -V Python 2.2.3+ $ python2.1 -V Python 2.1.3+ Debian python has a similar arrangement whereby if you want /usr/bin/python you depend on python, and if you want /usr/bin/python2.1 you depend on python2.1. It doesn't have the python2.1 - python dependency, though; that seems to be reserved for the default version. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you meant to do was to run make CC=gcc-2.95 instead of make. There is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what you want. Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3, gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of the kernel. I fail to see how 2.95 installing 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpuXaBQgLH2c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:14:08 -0700 Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. Correction, 2.4.20. For some reason 2.4.21 seems to be crashing my system hard every few minutes/hours/days (pick one). EG, see: 1 151 days, 15:35:00 | Linux 2.4.20Tue Feb 4 01:18:37 2003 2 8 days, 06:50:33 | Linux 2.4.21Sun Jul 13 06:54:34 2003 3 7 days, 12:59:18 | Linux 2.4.21Sat Jul 5 17:54:21 2003 4 3 days, 19:56:57 | Linux 2.4.21Wed Jul 30 23:49:33 2003 5 3 days, 04:21:28 | Linux 2.4.21Thu Jul 24 05:24:04 2003 6 2 days, 14:54:17 | Linux 2.4.21Mon Jul 21 13:55:47 2003 7 2 days, 07:26:42 | Linux 2.4.21Sun Jul 27 11:01:21 2003 8 0 days, 20:15:04 | Linux 2.4.21Tue Jul 29 19:09:21 2003 9 0 days, 15:30:14 | Linux 2.4.21Sun Aug 3 21:08:12 2003 10 0 days, 06:15:31 | Linux 2.4.21Wed Jul 30 15:26:33 2003 Unfortunately I didn't keep the 2.4.20 kernel package hence the need to recompile it. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpoqGLs3OGW1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you meant to do was to run make CC=gcc-2.95 instead of make. There is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what you want. Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3, gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of the kernel. I fail to see how 2.95 installing 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95. I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to a problem! It brings in 3.3 for hysterical raisins, but that doesn't stop gcc-2.95 from being perfectly usable. I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:25:27 -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to a problem! A failed kernel compile when trying to bring stability to a machine constitutes as a problem in my book. I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with? Given that I told it to build with 2.95 and it failed in the same manner as with 3.3 but when I installed 2.95 from Woody which ONLY installs 2.95 it succeeded I, quite frankly, don't care if it compiled with 1.10.0.101.10.2. 2.95 should install what it says it installs, 2.95. Debian has version numbers in the names for a reason and that reason being when people NEED the previous version and not to upgrade to the current one. See the whole thread about exim vs exim4 as reference. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpObY4Tf4W0w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3, gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of the kernel. What exactly does gcc-2.95 -v say? It could be a different version on 2.95 than what's in woody.
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Steve Lamb wrote: I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with? Given that I told it to build with 2.95 and it failed in the same manner as with 3.3 but when I installed 2.95 from Woody which ONLY installs 2.95 it succeeded I, quite frankly, don't care if it compiled with 1.10.0.101.10.2. 2.95 should install what it says it installs, 2.95. Debian has version numbers in the names for a reason and that reason being when people NEED the previous version and not to upgrade to the current one. I have managed to compile using gcc-2.95, using the gcc-2.95 package from testing a few weeks ago. I'm sure that it was actually gcc-2.95 that was used, since the program I was compiling has a bug which manifests itself on gcc 3.x, but not 2.95. And it worked when I used gcc-2.95, (from the debian package), but not with gcc-3.x (also from the debian packages). -- Keith
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you meant to do was to run make CC=gcc-2.95 instead of make. There is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what you want. Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. Works fine for me. *** End of Linux kernel configuration. *** Check the top-level Makefile for additional configuration. *** Next, you must run 'make dep'. mizar:[.../linux/kernel-source-2.4.21] make CC=gcc-2.95 make[1]: Entering directory `/space/tmp/mdz/linux/kernel-source-2.4.21/arch/i386/boot' make[1]: Nothing to be done for `dep'. make[1]: Leaving directory `/space/tmp/mdz/linux/kernel-source-2.4.21/arch/i386/boot' rm -f .depend .hdepend make _sfdep_kernel _sfdep_drivers _sfdep_mm _sfdep_fs _sfdep_net _sfdep_ipc _sfdep_lib _sfdep_crypto _sfdep_arch/i386/kernel _sfdep_arch/i386/mm _sfdep_arch/i386/lib _FASTDEP_ALL_SUB_DIRS=kernel drivers mm fs net ipc lib crypto arch/i386/kernel arch/i386/mm arch/i386/lib make[1]: Entering directory `/space/tmp/mdz/linux/kernel-source-2.4.21' make -C kernel fastdep make[2]: Entering directory `/space/tmp/mdz/linux/kernel-source-2.4.21/kernel' gcc-2.95 -D__KERNEL__ -I/space/tmp/mdz/linux/kernel-source-2.4.21/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -malign-functions=4 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -E -D__GENKSYMS__ signal.c [...] Yes, I know that's 2.4.21, but I'm not going to unpack a whole 2.4.20 tree to demonstrate that it works the same way. It does. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3, gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of the kernel. gcc-2.95 doesn't depend on 3.3; it depends on the gcc package, which happens to be version 3.3 in unstable. That package doesn't contain any compilers; it just sets the default compiler and related tools, e.g. /usr/bin/gcc. I fail to see how 2.95 installing 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95. It doesn't. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:56:50 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I know that's 2.4.21, but I'm not going to unpack a whole 2.4.20 tree to demonstrate that it works the same way. It does. I never said it didn't work. What I said was that when I did it 2.4.20 had the same error as if it were compiled with 3.3. So without compiling 2.4.20 w/ide-cd in it you're not replicating what I did and providing any basis of comparison whatsoever. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpzCqOoIThkC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:00:27AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:56:50 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I know that's 2.4.21, but I'm not going to unpack a whole 2.4.20 tree to demonstrate that it works the same way. It does. I never said it didn't work. What I said was that when I did it 2.4.20 had the same error as if it were compiled with 3.3. Then perhaps this particular problem was not with gcc 3.3. I think some additional investigation would be prudent before any talk about grave bugs. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:51:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:25:27 -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to a problem! A failed kernel compile when trying to bring stability to a machine constitutes as a problem in my book. I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with? Given that I told it to build with 2.95 and it failed in the same manner as with 3.3 but when I installed 2.95 from Woody which ONLY installs 2.95 it succeeded I, quite frankly, don't care if it compiled with 1.10.0.101.10.2. 2.95 should install what it says it installs, 2.95. Debian has version numbers in the names for a reason and that reason being when people NEED the previous version and not to upgrade to the current one. See the whole thread about exim vs exim4 as reference. And you're missing the point. Installing gcc-2.95 does install GCC 2.95. What else it installs is irrelevant. It installs a particular version of glibc that isn't gcc 2.95, too. Please stop crusading, and find out what your kernel build actually did. Because it works just fine for all the rest of us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:25:38 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then perhaps this particular problem was not with gcc 3.3. I think some additional investigation would be prudent before any talk about grave bugs. Which is why I asked here first before just filing. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpw6uX16u2UM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:33:53 -0400 Please stop crusading, and find out what your kernel build actually did. Because it works just fine for all the rest of us. Who's crusading? I am pointing out what I see as an apparent problem for discussion. Crusading would be to file the damned bug without discussion and defending it to the last breath. Calm down! -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpClj4e8XXDx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:20:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:14:08 -0700 Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. Correction, 2.4.20. For some reason 2.4.21 seems to be crashing my system hard every few minutes/hours/days (pick one). Don't compile your kernel with gcc 3.3. I don't know whether the bugs lie in the kernel or in gcc (or both), but this combination does not work correctly. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:54:38 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't compile your kernel with gcc 3.3. I don't know whether the bugs lie in the kernel or in gcc (or both), but this combination does not work correctly. Yeah. That was the whole reason I was trying to get a copy of 2.4.20 compiled with gcc 2.95. I didn't know if it was the compiler or the newer version of the kernel that had the problem. I just knew that my problems started with the newer version. If 2.4.20 is stable for 2 weeks I'll move it to my stable boot option, compile 2.4.21 w/gcc 2.95 and install it as the current and give it a whirl. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpAa52aqzGqG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Yeah. That was the whole reason I was trying to get a copy of 2.4.20 compiled with gcc 2.95. I didn't know if it was the compiler or the newer version of the kernel that had the problem. I just knew that my problems started with the newer version. If 2.4.20 is stable for 2 weeks I'll move it to my stable boot option, compile 2.4.21 w/gcc 2.95 and install it as the current and give it a whirl. 2.4.21 built with gcc 2.95 has been rock solid for me. -- - mdz
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:54:38 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't compile your kernel with gcc 3.3. I don't know whether the bugs lie in the kernel or in gcc (or both), but this combination does not work correctly. Yeah. That was the whole reason I was trying to get a copy of 2.4.20 compiled with gcc 2.95. I didn't know if it was the compiler or the newer version of the kernel that had the problem. I just knew that my problems started with the newer version. If 2.4.20 is stable for 2 weeks I'll move it to my stable boot option, compile 2.4.21 w/gcc 2.95 and install it as the current and give it a whirl. [snip] Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for the actual build. I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your environment before running the build. T -- We are in class, we are supposed to be learning, we have a teacher... Is it too much that I expect him to teach me??? -- RL
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400 H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for the actual build. That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it. I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your environment before running the build. Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3 present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing the environment and monkeying up the works. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpmQil8My3gr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400 H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for the actual build. That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it. If you need the machine stable, then why are you running testing or unstable? gcc 3.3 isn't in stable/woody. Plus, this sounds like a kernel bug not honoring your CC cmdline var. Bitching to debian will not help you, and just annoys us. I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your environment before running the build. Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3 present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing the environment and monkeying up the works. Forcing the issue? What are you forcing? We can't fix this. Besides, what stability issues are you having? Hardware? If so, test it better before deploying, or if it has gone flaky after deployment, buy replacement hardware.
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Adam, where does it say anywhere in my sig or headers that I want a CC? I read the list just fine, you can reply to the list and only the list just fine. I don't appreciate replying to what I think is a private message only to see a copy of it in the public area and have to resend the message for others to see. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpwYxfZdMQ89.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400 H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for the actual build. That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it. Downgrading sounds like overkill in this situation. I only had to edit /usr/src/linux/Makefile to change HOSTCC to gcc-2.95 and export CC=gcc-2.95 in the environment, and it worked fine for me. This is on 2.4.21, of course, but I suspect the same holds for 2.4.20. I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your environment before running the build. Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3 present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing the environment and monkeying up the works. [snip] ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-2.95 /usr/bin/gcc build kernel ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 /usr/bin/gcc Problem fixed. T -- Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself. -- Herman Hesse
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: Adam, where does it say anywhere in my sig or headers that I want a CC? I read the list just fine, you can reply to the list and only the list just fine. I don't appreciate replying to what I think is a private message only to see a copy of it in the public area and have to resend the message for others to see. lart, killfile.
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:16:43 -0400 H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Downgrading sounds like overkill in this situation. I only had to edit /usr/src/linux/Makefile to change HOSTCC to gcc-2.95 and export CC=gcc-2.95 in the environment, and it worked fine for me. This is on 2.4.21, of course, but I suspect the same holds for 2.4.20. [ SNIP ] ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-2.95 /usr/bin/gcc build kernel ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 /usr/bin/gcc Both of which I'd have to remember to do again later on if I compiled the kernel again. No, when 2.95 didn't work for whatever reason when I told make to use it I preferred to reduce the variables on the system. If 3.3 isn't present it can't be invoked, period. I don't have to remember to edit Makefiles later on on a different revision. I don't have to remember to reset symlinks, change alternatives or equivs or anything. I'm miffed mainly because I asked for 2.95 installed and got 3.3 as part of the deal. I don't take kindly to software installing other software without a clear need and there simply was no clear need. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpqD18CMCOyb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Package: gcc-2.95 Depends: gcc (= 1:2.95.3-2) Package: gcc Version: 3:3.3-2 ^^^ I was having a hell of a time recently trying to compile 2.4.20 (machine's been flaking since an upgrade to 2.4.21) which fails under GCC3.3. So I tried compiling under 2.95 which was... 3.3. Finally had to remove all copies of gcc then manually install the Woody version of gcc to get one that matched the intent of gcc-2.95. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpDumAF3Tr8C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:46:30PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Package: gcc-2.95 Depends: gcc (= 1:2.95.3-2) Package: gcc Version: 3:3.3-2 ^^^ I was having a hell of a time recently trying to compile 2.4.20 (machine's been flaking since an upgrade to 2.4.21) which fails under GCC3.3. So I tried compiling under 2.95 which was... 3.3. Finally had to remove all copies of gcc then manually install the Woody version of gcc to get one that matched the intent of gcc-2.95. What you meant to do was to run make CC=gcc-2.95 instead of make. There is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what you want. -- - mdz
