On 10/21/05, ~~~ Rohan ~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Ok. Point taken. But bear in mind that all distros that use gcc4 have > gcc3.x packages. Why let arch be different ? If gcc3 is more compatible with > certain source, why not just use it ?
Compatible is not the correct work - lenient is more proper. It's like the difference between a "hooker" and an "escort". > Aaron : No need to be so rude. It was a suggetion, not an order, and i > wanted views of the community. And it is NOT easy to compile gcc, on any > box. The time it takes... I don't think any of my message was rude. I personally thought you were being rude in your original message. Your point is that your need is greater than anyone elses, and that you want someone else to waste their time compiling gcc3 so that you don't have to. I understand you feel fully justified that because you want gcc-compat then everyone must want it, but the world doesn't work this way. If there is a huge need for a package it will be taken out of the AUR and placed into extra. As it stands, until that happens the developers are happy with the state of things. Trying to preempt the AUR voting process, you are saying "all these other packages that have 50+ votes don't matter, MINE is most important and doesn't need the votes." That's selfish. If you want it pushed to community, go ahead and rally people to vote for it, and I will gladly package it. Hell, right now it has 0 votes. I'm not putting a package into [community] if not even the uploader feels it is important enough to vote for. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
