linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch

To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch
From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
Date: 23 Apr 2001 07:54:47 +0200
Cc: Keith M Wesolowski <wesolows@foobazco.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <20010423003440.A20179@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:34:40 -0400")
Mail-copies-to: never
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> <20010423003440.A20179@nevyn.them.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

And that's the problem I have with glibc.  What should I put in?  We
can require newer binutils to build glibc - no problem.  But losing
backward compatibility is a big deal.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>