Rob Landley [off-list ref] writes:

On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

quoted

Rob Landley [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

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?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com