Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:59:49 +0300 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<3405-Sat30Jun2001083323+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106300848000.25756-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:07:31 -0400
> > From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> > 
> > > That would mean that GCC 3.0 should have been released together with
> > > Binutils, since that's the only way of updating the built-in script.
> > > And likewise for the next releases of GCC and Binutils.
> > 
> > If the script is written right, we shouldn't have to do this any more
> > often than Linux or other systems do.
> 
> That's true.  However, note that, unlinke GNU/Linux, our port is much
> less tested during development, and so more likely to suffer from
> bitrot.  We also release djdev much less frequently than glibc's
> release cycle.  For these two reasons, it's quite possible that we
> will need to change the script when GNU/Linux doesn't.
> 
> Anyway, did you check how frequently do the Linux people modify the
> script?  For all I know, they could be doing that every week or so ;-)
> 

I don't think so. It is usually possible to use binutils versions in a
rather large range. Of course one can go to
	http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/ 
(binutils Linux versions from H.J.Lu) and see whether I'm right.
I don't have time for that now

Andris
 

- Raw text -