From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Subject:	Re: BNU 2.13.2.1 query
Date:	Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:42:50 +0200
User-Agent:	KMail/1.5
References:	<10302071435 DOT AA24969 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
In-Reply-To:	<10302071435.AA24969@clio.rice.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<200302072142.50867.pavenis@latnet.lv>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Friday 07 February 2003 16:35, Charles Sandmann wrote:
> > > On 1-Jan-2003 there was an incremental Bin Utils 2.13.2.1 release. I
> > > have not seen any info on this version.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if any of the changes will affect us?
> >
> > Currently if you try to build the sources with debugging on with gcc
> > 3.2.1 and binutils 2.13, it will crash in the DXE build. It has been
> > mentioned before on this list that the bug that causes this crash has
> > been fixed in a later binutils release. I haven't checked this, though.
> >
> > What would the package be called? We currently have bnu213b, etc.
> > bn21321b? bu21321b?
>
> Unless it fixes working with UPX, or someone understands why these changes
> are happening - I think we should just say NO to newer binutils and stick
> with something older that works.  But that's up to whoever is using it :-)

Often we find time to look into deeper details only when something stops to 
work. Unfortunatelly it's so. But we all have also many other things to do.

> Downgrading to something newer, just because it's newer and buggier, isn't
> always the right thing to do.

Every is free to choose.

Of course one can use gcc-2.7.2.1, binutils-2.8.1, etc. It also would work 
much more faster. Pewhaps for that reason it would be best to have all these 
old versions in some one place.

Andris

- Raw text -