On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, David Walluck wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> > Why is mandrake going to a cvs snapshot of gcc ?
> > You would think of all the much about redhat doing so, you'd think more
> > than twice about a move like this.
> >
> > And even statement(I'd more likely call it an advisory) from the gcc team
> > ?
>
> No kidding. And last time I tried the gcc 2.96 snapshot Mandrake had, I
> couldn't compile even the most basic things with it. According to what I
> read, 2.96 *will not* be compatible with 3.0, so neither is 2.95.2 BUT AT
> LWAST IT WORKS. What are you guys doing??
Well according to the gcc team C++ is the only real incompatibilty.
But a few facts remains:
1). It's cvs-ware. Hence thecode relating to the currently compatible
languages(such as C) between these cvs snapshots and current and upcoming
offical releases can change, which further produces more incompatible
binaries produced by thse cvs snaphots.
2). I think I can safely assume that the reason for this change to 2.9.6 is
to keep compatbility with redhat. This should be the other way around.
Redhat should be keeping compatible with other distros.
Redhat is _not_ linux.
That's my 2 cents on the situation at hand.
--
Bryan Paxton
Public key can be found at http://speedbros.org/bryan.paxton.asc
