Re: Question on the binutils tradlittlemips patch

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>]

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