go for 2.1

[Geoff Keating]

> Reply-To: drepper@cygnus.com (Ulrich Drepper)
> From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@cygnus.com>
> Date: 25 Nov 1998 11:45:18 -0800
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The last (non-technical) problem preventing a glibc 2.1 release is now
> gone and we can plan the release freely now.
> 
> I'll try to make a new test release today and given the many geeks who
> are bored in the upcoming four days without work we might get some
> results soon so that we can shoot for a release next week or the other
> week.
> 
> 
> This is now the time you should speek up if something important is
> missing.  I don't count the PIC-SHARED thing since this is only
> renaming a variable and introducing optimizations for MIPS.  Given
> that MIPS is not really supported anyway (it might compile but isn't
> really tested) I don't consider it a loss.
> 
> Here is what I understand the current status is.  Please correct me:
> 
> - Linux/ix86: compiles, tests ok
> 
> - Linux/m68k: compiles, tests ok
> 
> - Linux/Alpha: compiles, tests ok
> 
> - Linux/PPC: compiles, tests ok

As always, you can see a nearly-current status at
< http://discus.anu.edu.au/~geoffk/libc-ppc-status.txt >;
last I looked, it was OK.

I guess I should check the actual test release tarfile when it comes
out, unless someone else with a fast machine could do this?

> Please also mention if special gcc/egcs/binutils versions are required.

The current FAQ entry for egcs is OK, but the URL could be updated to
< http://discus.anu.edu.au/~geoffk/egcs-3b.diff >
which is nicer if you try to compile other programs with the same
egcs.

I don't know which of HJ's binutils versions will work.  I think the
2.8.1 FSF version is OK, and the snapshots after 981030 seem to be OK
too (well, I know for sure about 981030 and 981117).  The current
advice in the FAQ is probably good enough.

-- 
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@ozemail.com.au>