From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: specify minimum versions of make and
 binutils
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:09:36 -0700
Message-ID: <569F4ED002000078000C8EA3@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
References: <1453136032-24899-1-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com>
	<569D290C02000078000C8305@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<569D1F1E.7020504@cardoe.com>
	<569E065E02000078000C8596@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<569E8D56.7030502@cardoe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <569E8D56.7030502@cardoe.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 19.01.16 at 20:24, <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/16 2:48 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 18.01.16 at 18:21, <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/16 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:53, <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:
>>>>> To help people avoid having to figure out what versions of make and
>>>>> binutils need to be supported document them explicitly. The version of
>>>>> binutils that had to be supported was mentioned in
>>>>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg00609.html 
>>>>> as 2.17. Knowing that Jan got these versions from SLES10 I looked up the
>>>>> version of GNU make from the same vintage (mid-2006) and landed on 3.81.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid that same SLE10 has been using binutils 2.16.9<n>.<something>
>>>> and make 3.80. While (still building Xen there once in a while) I'd probably
>>>> not be in big trouble if we decided we don't want to support that old an
>>>> environment anymore, I don't think we can just go and document higher
>>>> versions than we so far allowed. We'd first need to settle on where to
>>>> draw the line nowadays (which then likely would mean a gcc minimal
>>>> version bum too).
>>>
>>> Not a problem. I was just trying to take the situation from a guessing
>>> game to be explicitly called out. I was documenting what my logic was
>>> behind the version numbers I selected. I wasn't able to compare dates
>>> with binutils because their repo goes from 2003 to 2011 [1]. So I went
>>> back to SLES10's release date [2] and the GCC 4.1.0 release date [3] to
>>> compare it with GNU make [4].
>>>
>>> Honestly I'd be happy if we just drew a line in the sand so that its
>>> clear what I need to test against when I submit patches. I don't really
>>> care where the line is.
>> 
>> Then how about 2.16.1 and 3.80 respectively as the initial line?
> 
> Sounds great to me. Would you like me to resubmit or do you want to make
> that change. I'm ok if you throw away my patch and author it yourself.
> Whatever is easiest for you (or whoever commits it).

I'd prefer if you re-submitted.

Jan