On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:29, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Michael D. Harnois" wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this can now be committed?
> > >
> > > NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers.
> > 
> > OK, I'm confused. binutils has been broken for three weeks. We have a
> > patch that we know fixes, at the very least, one of the known problems.
> > However, it can't be committed without feedback from the developers.
> > 
> > So having binutils broken indefinitely is better than applying a patch
> > that *might* have to be backed out or altered later?
> I believe the intent is to ensure that the patches make it
> back into the FSF distributed code, so that in the future,
> there is less maintenance required for FreeBSD platforms.

This is all wonderful.

But then it seems to me that the entire new binutils should have been
backed out until it worked. Just like XFree-4.2.0 was backed out.
Michael D. Harnois                   bilocational bivocational
Pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church                Washburn, Iowa
1L, UST School of Law                   Minneapolis, Minnesota
 EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from 
 the foolish their lack of understanding. -- Ambrose Bierce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to