--- Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > I must say that this issue that you think it nothing to care about
> > is the stability of all the programs included in the distribution.
> > They know it's unstable since they have choosen not to compile the
> > kernel with it, but the rest of the system is not that important.
>
>
> That's untrue. Read litterature from Torvalds on
> that subject to become convinced.
> You have to know that the kernel has a lot of
> code that rely on special features of gcc to compile,
> and would not compile with other compilers.
> That's partially why current gcc (2.96) can't
> compile the kernel currently.
>
> Also, don't take us for idiots; if your statement was true,
> we would not choose to use 2.96, we're not dumb.
To the contary, imo, you and the rest of the team are very smart! I
would not be here if I did not think so.:)
My problem is that I agree that you&team are smart and I will support
the distro regardless of the direction because of that et al, but I
must also ask:
Is this usage of gcc-2.96 because ''We must remain compatible with RH''
?
> > that the developers of gcc have said that they dont want gcc 2.96
> > to be used in distros, and I think it's important to respect the
> > developers will.
>
> Not all the developpers have said that.
Is MandrakeSoft(& RH, too) trying to steer the GCC Team to dropping
gcc-pre3.0 in favor of 2.96 as it is very highly patched by mdk?
Is that even possible in light of their staunch statements against
2.96?
> Reality is that using that compiler in distros such as
> rh and us, brings a very large test code base
> for gcc and help them to progress in their work.
GCC 'official' direction of their work is with gcc-3.0. So, then, Why
is gcc-pre3.0 not in cooker?
> Also, gcc-2.96 fixes many very important problems in gcc-2.95.
> Especially in terms of C++ code, they produced
> a lot of nice work and 2.96 brings many enhancements.
What you realy mean is that it makes your job easier, faster and
cheaper because when 2.96 compiles progs you can be pretty certain that
the resulting binary will actually work and .: you will not have to
'fix' anything. That's smart for MandrakeSoft but is it for the long
term needs of the Linux RPM-based community?
I know M'Soft is a great supporter of the 'community' -AYA reason we
love you folks so much. So, sorry, I am trying to see how it is good
for the community, but I do not.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Cottenceau - http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
>
It seems that many agree with Alan Cox's statement(in "Signal 11") that
using 2.96 in a _production_ build of the kernel is not a wise choice
and am surprised that such smart people chose to ignore his advice.
Perhaps he has changed his mind, yes?/no?
Respectfully,
rj
Linux: Get it. Use it. Improve it.
===================================
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
