From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, Hans-Peter Nilsson , "H . J . Lu" Subject: Re: Release 2.12 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011024234421.A12016@nevyn.them.org> References: <20011025110841.Z1037@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20011024215003.A9135@nevyn.them.org> <20011025121333.D1037@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20011024231041.A10694@nevyn.them.org> <20011025130514.G1037@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00481.html On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 01:05:14PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > Because critical bugs are found in the released versions and not fixed. > > GNU Libc, for instance, has an unpleasant habit of depending on > > binutils not-yet-released. The patches don't tend to be easily > > back-portable for those without a history of binutils experience. If > > we want to make new programs work, we need to move forward fairly > > frequently, and HJ offers the only way to do that. > > Which is the sense that I meant "better". ie. as things stand at the > moment, HJ's binutils-2.11.92.0.10 is probably better than 2.11.2 for > most people. I wasn't trying to say that 2.11 was worse than HJ's > release just before the 2.11 release date. In which case, sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer