crosstool-0.40 released: gcc-4.1 rc1 support

[Robert Schwebel]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:22:04AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   hmmmm ... i vaguely recall someone making a suggestion like this not
> long ago.  hey, wait ... that was *me*. :-)

Fine - would you please request a berlios account =8-) 

> at the very least, it would seem to be a no-brainer to remove all of
> those dated versions of glibc.  even if you can make a case for
> retaining numbered *official* versions, i'm not sure there's any point
> in having a patches directory for, say, glibc-20040822.  more
> generally, is there any problem with having a policy that *all* dated
> CVS checkouts will be removed once the next official numbered version
> is released?  (unless there's some really exceptional circumstances.)

Sounds pretty good. In reality there _are_ reasons why people want to
use some random old versions, but that should be _their_ problem, not
that one of upstream. I mean - it's possible, but it shouldn't be a
showstopper for moving things like nptl etc. forward. 

> and, following robert's train of thought, at what point can even
> *numbered* versions be removed (or at least no longer officially
> supported)?  granted, i don't have the historical knowledge to know if
> this is reasonable but, once you have, say, binutils-2.16.1, is there
> a whole lot of value to binutils-2.11.2?

Well, there might be architectures which don't work with the latest
versions. IMHO the right thing to do is to fix it there, not to proceed
with historic versions. The goal should be to have green fields for the
latest versions of all architectures in Dan's build matrix. 

> (aside:  i can appreciate the inevitable argument that having old
> software directories doesn't really *hurt* anything but it might be
> better to look at it this way:  if a certain version of software has a
> patch directory in crosstool, that implicitly says that it's
> supported and users have the right to expect help with it.  if it's so
> old that no one really wants to support it any more, it should be
> removed.)

True. And it hinders people who want to maintain that in a consistent
way, because nobody really cares of porting 102 combinations (which is
what crosstool-0.40 has). 

Robert
-- 
 Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
   Handelsregister:  Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
     Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
   Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-206917-9


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.org