[arch-dev-public] binutils-2.20 toolchain rebuild in [testing]
snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 17:28:43 EDT 2009
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-126.96.36.199-1. 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.
More information about the arch-dev-public