Alexander Kabaev wrote: > We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent > our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with > RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for > serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace it with > newer and possibly binary incompatible 3.3 release shortly afterwards is > a complete waste of time.
There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to incorporate it... > > And we all know how successful that was, right? > > On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC > 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this > deeply satisfying experiment again? That was because the patches were not being submitted back against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, combined with not a little "Linux advocacy" and "ELF advocacy". This issue is *nothing* like FreeBSD's steadfast refusal for *two years* to adopt ELF, and GCC treating non-ELF support as legacy support, with no expectations of continued developement. In the context the question was asked, it was *also* not about FreeBSD trying to get patches into GCC, it was about "upgrading" to GCC 3.2. It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into Jesse Gross's trolling here). It's all well and good to volunteer David O'Brien for additional *useless* work that he has already stated is *useless work*. I could understand raising the issue (though not over and over and over in a short period of time, as Mr. Gross has done recently) if the works was considered something that needed to be done immediately, or if patches to bmake the GCC 3.3 experimental release people want FreeBSD to user were being submitted, but all it's been so far is "request for David O'Brien to do work he considers useless". FreeBSD has been conservative in its adoption of new compilers in the past; it would, in fact be reasonable, from an historical perspective, to not see 3.3 adopted for over a year following its release. I don't see why waiting for 3.3 to actually be released is such a terrible idea. Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at me. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message