| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2014, 14:36:44 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 2 |
> >>> Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, |
| 3 |
> >>> 2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, |
| 4 |
> >>> 2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> I can't fully speak to this as I'm not familiar. But are you? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > No, I'm not. Which is why I am asking. I'm happy to learn. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Shall I google that for you? j/k Here are the change logs -> |
| 11 |
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ There are always some big ticket |
| 12 |
> items ... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Hehe, yeah I dont doubt that a lot is changing. :) And probably more will |
| 15 |
come. I'm more concerned about the active maintaining / testing with current |
| 16 |
software of the old versions, but then since I'm not the one maintaining |
| 17 |
them... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> And how would someone running 4.9 get to 3.4? |
| 20 |
[...] |
| 21 |
> The general testing rule for compiling gcc with gcc is two |
| 22 |
> versions back/forwards --- Ryan can correct me if he was doing something |
| 23 |
> different, but thats' what I've done for ages. So you really need to |
| 24 |
> keep that chain 4.8 -> 4.7 -> 4.6 ... -> 3.3 going. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
True, that's a valid point for keeping a "stepladder" of old gcc versions down |
| 27 |
to the earliest version that you want to keep. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Cheers, |
| 30 |
Andreas |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) |
| 35 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 36 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives