Re: A1200 2.4.17 bug - found problem!!!

[Michel <mi...@da...>]

[ you forgot to CC: the list again, please fix your mailer ;]=20

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:48, Alan Buxey wrote:=20
>=20
> > Have you verified that the 2.4.13 kernel that works was built with an o=
lder
> > compiler, or that a different compiler produces a working kernel from c=
urrent
> > source?
>=20
> I can check this easily - i'll look at my dmesg when i boot

strings /kernel/image | grep gcc

> - but i'm certain my working 2.4.13 is from back last october - with
> 2.95.2 or 2.95.3

Looking at /usr/share/doc/gcc-2.95/changelog.Debian.gz, the first '2.95.4'
version appeared on April 12th, 2001.

> > It could also be binutils.
>=20
> hmm, yes - you dont know the current stable/testing binutils version off =
hand do you?

daenzer@tibook> apt-show-versions -a -p binutils                           =
   ~
binutils	2.12.90.0.14-2	install ok installed
No stable version
binutils	2.12.90.0.1-4	testing
binutils	2.12.90.0.15-1	unstable
binutils/unstable upgradeable from 2.12.90.0.14-2 to 2.12.90.0.15-1

I assume testing has the same version as stable yet; I don't recommend 2.12=
.90.0.15-1,
it seemed to produce broken kernel modules.


> > > so, either we change things in our tree to stop this...or advice that
> > > everyone leave 2.95.4 well alone and either backtrack to 2.95.2 or mo=
ve up
> > > to 3.x - anyone playing with 3.x?
> >=20
> > AFAIK 3.0 has problems, 3.1 is better. Debian will switch to 3.2 soon.
>=20
> okay - i know i can have 2.x with 3.x installed at the same time

Should 3.x turn out to fix this problem, I can figure out a way to build
the Debian packages (the binaries of which I also use for the tarballs
on sf.net) with that.


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast