Re: making a 2.95.4 release

["David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:46:36PM +0000, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > Why couldn't Red Hat do that in the EGCS 1.0 days?
> 
> Do what, exactly?

Why couldn't Red Hat use EGCS 1.0.2 + patches.  Instead EGCS 1.0.3 as
released for Red Hat's needs.
    http://gcc.gnu.org/egcs-1.0/egcs-1.0.3.html
    EGCS 1.0.3 is a minor update to the EGCS 1.0.2 compiler to fix a few
    problems reported by Red Hat for builds of Red Hat 5.1.


> > Does Red Hat and glibc carry more stock than Debian, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
> > OpenBSD combined?
> 
> Not sure how Red Hat factors into the equation, since our OS people are
> no longer using 2.95.x.

See above.  It factors in because a need of Red Hat was the reason for a
release from what was suppose to be a "dead" branch.


> I thought you are shipping a separate set of gcc sources for BSD - so
> where's the problem with just using code from the branch for that?  I fail
> to see how making it an official release would be of any help.

Ok, but then I will call it 2.95.4 and I don't want any crap for using a
non-"real" version number.  Also I will have to move our port to using
CVS for distfile fetching as when we switch to 3.1, about 1/2 of the 6000
3rd party apps will not compile with 3.1.  Thus they will have to depend
our our gcc295 port.

Making a 2.95.4 release also helps the other people out there that are
still using 2.95.3 get a few bug fixes.


> There needs to be more testing to make
> sure there are no regressions, and it could be difficult to find the
> volunteers for that with 3.1 around the corner.  And if we make another
> official release, I simply think it would be nice to fix more problems
> first.

Fixing more problems would be nice, but will people make any more commits
to the 2.95 branch?

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)