Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> >> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer >> >> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex. >> > >> > Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on >> > endless new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is >> > regression testing against them, not because they actually add >> > anything. >> >> Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in >> the arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism? > > If you require current gnome and drop support for older versions (and > implicitly all other desktops), people start writing stuff that depends > on systemd. It doesn't matter if the feature you abandoned support for > the past 10 years of everthing else for wasn't itself provided by > systemd. Are you saying current binutils depends on gnome and/or systemd? -- Måns Rullgård mans@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
