This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [skimo@kotnet.org] libc/2030: [50 character or so descriptive subject here (for reference)]
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: [skimo@kotnet.org] libc/2030: [50 character or so descriptive subject here (for reference)]
- From: Philip Blundell <philb at gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:33:42 +0000
- cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <u83dee9xkk.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de>
>Should we demand newer binutils? Is this really a bug - and how can
>we check for recent enough binutils?
>
>Will the following work for configure? And is a test for 2.10.1 or
>newer sufficient?
Telling people to use 2.10.1 seems like a reasonable idea to me, though it's
worth remembering that "2.10.1.0.4", which the original reporter said he's now
using, is actually one of H.J's snapshots from the trunk and will be
substantially different to 2.10.1, despite the similarity in name.
p.