Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:34:18 +0200 (CEST)

   On 30 Jul, Marc Lehmann wrote:

   > It's you who is unprof(f)essional. You were and are totally wrong with
   > your today's claim about gcc -- claiming some not-yet-existant
   > version of gcc causes problems on your machine.

    Pardon? Just because a version is not officially released doesn't mean
    it doesn't exist, does it? 

For this purpose, I would say it does (mean that it does not exist).
Especially since it isn't even a formal snapshot (which egcs was doing
for a while), but rather just the current development tree.

    I'm forced to use a gcc version later than the LAST OFFICIALLY released
    version because I'm having severe problem with the C++ frontend in 
    2.95.2. I claim I'm using the CVS version from today which is obviously
    more rencent than 2.95.2.
    Now please tell me, where's my thinko???

The current development tree of GCC could do anything at all,
including not work.  It may not even be consistent.  It is not the
responsibility of the Gimp developers to track gcc in real time.  When
the next version of gcc is released, then it's reasonable to complain
about compile failures in the Gimp, but at present you have no idea
whatsoever whether this is a Gimp bug or a GCC bug.  "More recent"
does not necessarily mean "better" or "more correct".

It's possible to have multiple versions of gcc installed on your

   > I am not. However, unless you tell me about it I will have no way of
   > finding out.

    Ok, I told you that you can't compile the plugin with a CVS version 
    of gcc. There will be surely a new release somewhen so even more
    people will notice it, so fixing it before that will happen seems
    sensible to me.

Unless the GCC developers have announced that something has changed
that will permanently cause an incompatibility, there's no particular
reason to believe that the compile failure is due to anything wrong
with the Gimp.

    Marc, I just want to know ONE little thing: Will you help to make
    the gimpperl plugin usable on more systems (for example on future
    gccs), YES or NO? 

Unless the change has been announced as permanent, you have no idea
what future gcc's will look like.

Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Tall Clubs International  -- or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for The Gimp Print --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton

Reply via email to