Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:46:07PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:58:00PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:04:02 -0700
> > > From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
> > 
> > > libc.so may be compiled on a different machine with gcc 3 and the
> > > target machine may not have gcc 3.0 installed.
> > 
> > I think this makes about as much sense as compiling an application
> > with glibc 2.2 for a target machine that might not have glibc 2.2
> > installed.
> 
> What makes you think that? On the target machine, the only binary
> compiled with gcc 3 may be just libc.so. Requiring installing the
> gcc used to compile libc.so to install libc.so is a new thing to
> glibc.

If you're going to install any program compiled with gcc 3.0, at least
libgcc_s.so.1 ought to be present.  What's unreasonable about that? 
Not all of GCC needs to be.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer