[arch-dev-public] binutils-2.20 toolchain rebuild in [testing]

[Eric Bélanger]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 15:45 -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > The binutils-2.20 toolchain rebuild is in [testing] for i686.  I will do
>> > the x86_64 rebuilds in the next day or two.  A summary of changes:
>> >
>> > kernel-headers - bump to latest
>> >
>> > binutils - bump to latest
>> >
>> > glibc - grab upstream patchset for proposed future stable release, fix
>> > overflow bug (FS#16253), patch to build against latest binutils
>> >
>> > gcc - bump to latest, use package spitting (gcc-libs, gcc, gcc-fortran,
>> > gcc-objc), move static libraries from gcc-libs to gcc, add gcc-ada
>> > package, do not run fixincludes during build.
>> >
>> > I will call for a signoff a few days after getting the x86_64 builds done.
>> >
>> > Allan
>> >
>>
>> FYI, kernel-headers would be a candidate for the any arch. However, if
>> you do the switch, then you'll need to release the toolchain for both
>> arches at the same time otherwise it might break some stuff.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure about that. Have you diffed extracted tarballs of
> kernel-headers for both architectures and did it return only .PKGINFO
> related differences?
> Reason for asking this is the /usr/include/asm directory. Though these
> files are just stupid header files, the asm directory is usually taken
> from architecture-specific includes.
>
>

I had the same thought and had done a diff for
kernel-headers-2.6.30.5-1.  Only the .PKGINFO were different.  It's
possible that this will be changed for future updates though.  Maybe
it would be safer to keep it arch dependent.