On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> pleased because they didn't want to get bug reports for a release
>> of gcc that they did not officially release.
>
> The note from the gcc project said the version RH took had serious
>bugs, and was not production quality. I think they have a pretty good
>idea what the state of a development release might be.
Red Hat fixed many bugs, and released a very stable compiler.
The snapshot it started out as is irrelevant. The final Red Hat
release is certainly production quality.
>> This doesn't mean it is buggy at all.
>
> Isn't this the compiler which won't build a working kernel?
Yes, and the reason for that for the 1000'th time to all you
blind people is that the *KERNEL*, read that once again, the
*KERNEL* is *BUGGY* and as a result, the STABLE kernel Red Hat
ships, will not compile the kernel due to *KERNEL* bugs. This is
the OFFICIAL Linus response on the issue. Go read and then come
back without the FUD.
>I have a note that to build a kernel with RH7 you need to
>download "kcc" or some such from the RH site. That's an honest
>question, not a statement.
And that is 100% bullshit. The Linux kernel contains bugs, that
is not contestable. Those bugs prevent the kernel from being
compiled by the standard gcc shipping in Red Hat 7.0. As a
result, Red Hat *INCLUDES* the RECOMMENDED compiler (Officially
endorsed by Linus Torvalds, and now appearing in the kernel
source's Changes file) which is called "kgcc" so that the kernel
may be compiled with the recommended compiler. This "kgcc" is
nothing special, it is simply gcc 2.91.66 renamed to kgcc solely
for building stable kernels.
This "kgcc" comes *WITH* Red Hat Linux and does not require
anyone to download any special stuff from the Red Hat site.
_That_ is an honest _statement_ of _fact_, NOT fud.
What's more, is that the convention of using the name "kgcc" to
build kernel's was one from Connectiva Linux, which Red Hat
adopted because it seemed like a good idea to solve the problem,
and which most major distributions are also adopting right now.
As a matter of fact, the official Linus penguin pee kernel's top
level Makefile is patched now to look for a "kgcc" to build the
kernel with. Therefore, this "kcc" thing is not only FUD being
spread as something bad, but it is the new official way of doing
business with kernel builds.
>> > The bug seems entirely theirs, maybe they "enhanced" the software...
>>
>> Please take your OS distribution wars somewhere else.
>
> Building cdrecord from source works, the distribution binary doesn't.
>I don't consider answering a question and pointing out nonfunctional release
>code "OS wars," Linux distributions do not have Papal Infalability.
No, but you sure like to read comments about something somewhere
which are incorrect, and then spread them without researching the
truth first. There are tonnes of bullshit rumors and FUD going
around about Red Hat Linux 7.0, and I am sick of reading these
false statements.
I can back up my statements with official proof, can you?
If this message sounds irate, I'm sorry. It is. It isn't
directly all aimed at you however. I'm on a lot of lists, and
continually seeing the same old "It doesn't work, so it's because
of the broken Red Hat compiler, blah blah" spoken by someone who
is clueless to reality, and it is really starting to piss me off.
So this message is my clue by four for all the FUD mongers out
there. Before you make FUD statements, learn the truth first or
make an ass out of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate
This message is copyright 2000, all rights reserved.
Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Quote: Linus Torvalds linux-2.4.0-test8-pre6 release message - Sept 6, 2000]
But I have this ugly feeling that I'm coming down with the same flu that
everybody else in my family had the last week, so I'd better release this
before I start puking on my keyboard.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
