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)
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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 =
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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*
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
