From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christopher C. Chimelis" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, Hans-Peter Nilsson , "H . J . Lu" Subject: Re: Release 2.12 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:09:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20011024231041.A10694@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00485.html On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Yes, that part. And it's certainly not "most". Consider: > - Debian uses them. That's Chris C.'s decision, and seems to be a > reasonable one, overall. I evaluate both the FSF releases and H.J.'s, no matter what. Mostly, I use H.J.'s for two reasons: includes the hooks for Compaq demangler support for their compiler releases for Alpha-Linux and also because H.J.'s usually include newer fixes from CVS for platforms that Debian has ports for (such as IA-64, HPPA, and MIPS{el}). > 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. Agreed on all points. C