| To: | Keith M Wesolowski <wesolows@foobazco.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch |
| From: | Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> |
| Date: | Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:34:40 -0400 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <20010422212301.B6180@foobazco.org>; from wesolows@foobazco.org on Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:23:01PM -0700 |
| References: | <20010418141959.A24473@nevyn.them.org> <3ADDFD6A.AD0DDE4A@cotw.com> <20010418163727.A29531@nevyn.them.org> <20010422180718.A6180@foobazco.org> <20010422221953.A9097@nevyn.them.org> <20010422212301.B6180@foobazco.org> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.16i |
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:23:01PM -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:19:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > I have them working in the case I care about - no backwards > > compatibility at all. We (Monta Vista) can get away with this :) > > I've attached the patches. > > This looks like what I have come up with as well. I don't care about > backward compatibility either. If someone else wants to support > broken crap that's their problem; in an age where we have scripts and > makefiles to rebuild entire systems from source I can't see the point > of binary compatibility. Don't you wish? My other hat is Debian, which can't just ditch existing MIPS installations like that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer Monta Vista Software Debian Security Team |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: ls from fileutils-4.0.43 segfaults, Keith M Wesolowski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch, Andreas Jaeger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch, Keith M Wesolowski |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch, Andreas Jaeger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |