linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch

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>