On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 13:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 13:03 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Ralf Ertzinger wrote: > > > So glibc will have to be excluded from the update frenzy :) > > > > As I said, in a couple of days we'll hopefully have the gcc, binutils, > > glibc pieces in place to make the next big change in the build > > procedures and then you cannot do *any* update unless you get the new > > glibc. The rpm infrastructure should catch those requirements but be > > warned. We'll announce the build changes ahead of time as well. > > Can we drop -fsigned-char on PPC at the same time? > > Currently, it's massively inconsistent because some packages use > $RPM_OPT_FLAGS while others don't. If you build an executable from a C > file with just 'make testprog', you'll end up with different signedness > of 'char' from that which glibc was built with, etc. > My understanding was that glibc doesn't care which signedness char has. (Although, other libraries may matter. Perhaps a section on not using char in library ABIs is in order for dsohowto.pdf) -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
