From: Brian O'Donoghue (Brian.ODonoghue at domain kbs.ie)
Date: Fri 05 Jul 2002 - 12:20:24 IST
Not using Red Hat I can't comment... there was some sort of fiasco where Red
Hat released their own unsupported version of gcc.... 2.96 they called it or
But if the gcc version you are proposing to put in is some sort of official
or quasi-official release of gcc presumably you should be safe enough.
That said I doubt I would do it... just for an SRPM.... seems perhaps a bit
like overkill... would it not be simpler for you to simply get an official
kernel source file from ftp.kernel.org as this would presumably negate your
need to upgrade gcc ie(if in doubt use the older slower, tried and tested
version and be boring)?
[I've a development server with a standard 7.1 install on it.
I want to upgrade the kernel. I'm thinking of just taking the redhat 7.3
2.4.18 kernel, and rebuilding it on the box. The SRPM requires a modutils
upgrade (never any harm) and a gcc upgrade - from 2.96 (20000731) to
"gcc >= 2.96-98".
If this was my workstation, I'd have no problems with it. But this is a
development box, which code will be compiled on to go on live machines,
with the standard RedHat 7.1 install on them.
Would upgrading GCC break stuff on those ? Would it be safer just to
compile the kernel with the 7.1 GCC, and comment out the requirement for
GCC out of the spec file ?
Should I just go for the standard 2.4.18 kernel instead ?]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:17:41 GMT