Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0?

[Thierry Vignaud]

Christian Zoffoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> ...so I think it's more interesting addressing the efforts to a new
> standard compiler rather than waste time in a "virtual" compiler
> composed by 350 patches. 

what do you think we're doing ?
we've launched a rpm-rebuilder on a special box to rebuild the distro with
gcc-3.0 (+ some backported fixes from 3.0.1 branch)
1/3 of the distro has been processed with 95% of success
if the score is enough high and not so much big packages 've problems, ...