On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:39:08PM -0600, Michael D. Harnois wrote:
> 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.
It works in general for 'make world' and is suffient for FreeBSD
developent -- the purpose of 5-CURRENT. It is also allowing us to find
bugs that would otherwise go unfixed in Binutils 2.12.0 release. Or
would you perfer we stick to 2.11.x forever -- BTW that would not give us
support for IA-64 or x86-64.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message