On 05-Jan-13 20:09, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > build. With pure64 we just send the patch the BTS and wait for > the maintainer to apply it. The gcc-3.4 archive on the other > hand applies all kinds of patches, even totaly broken patches,
Good evening Kurt, please specify which patches that are used by the gcc-3.4 archive are broken. Almost all of the patches in the gcc-3.4 archive have been filed to the BTS. If you know that one of the patches is broken, please give me the details so that I can try to fix the patch and inform the package maintainer that the patch is broken. If you do not have any specific patch in mind to support your accusations, I will be tempted to to ask you to stop spreading FUD about the gcc-3.4 archive. On the other hand, I know that you disagree with some of my decisions for the gcc-3.4 archive, especially the decision to change the location of the linker to '/lib' instead of '/lib64'. I think that '/lib64' will be abandoned in the long run and therefore I do not like the idea to introduce it in the first place. Call this broken if you like. Sometimes there is more than one way to do things. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
