Randy McMurchy wrote: > Could you point me to that post where Ryan refuted some of Greg's > points? I saw a post where Ryan described why a particular method > was good, but from the best I could tell, didn't address any of > Greg's points why a method was bad.
So far, Ryan has given us the most thorough explanation of the situation: http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-January/055693.html > I was just hoping that there could be a good discussion. And when > someone (especially one of Greg's stature in the toolchain foodchain > ladder) says something is bad, and gives what sounds like good reasons > (I am not qualified to agree or refute them) for his assertions, > and they go unanswered, I feel those assertions are simply being > dismissed. Greg's stance isn't being dismissed at all. I have tried to listen objectively to both sides, and some of Greg's suggestions I have already incorporated. Though I'm putting Ryan's preference in trunk right now, for the sake of getting trunk back in order, Dan and myself are both going to be working to dig through gcc a bit better to understand what's going on and why. Greg's assertions *are* being considered; just as Ryan's are. > To me, and just an opinion from one guy, three days is not long > enough, especially when the guy making the decision is > self-admittedly not as technically strong as he should be. If trunk wasn't conceivably broken right now, I'd agree. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
