* Problem with the fix to PR 10234 @ 2003-04-02 23:47 Joe Buck 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-04-02 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Sorry to have to bring this up, but I was updating my bug list for 3.2.3 and just noticed this. The fix to PR 10234 was erroneous. Sorry I missed it, but it should have been closed as "not a bug". The fact that the URL printed by released compilers for bug report instructions points to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html and not to gcc.gnu.org was something that RMS asked for and that the SC agreed to. This goes back to the days of the egcs/FSF re-merger, and was just one of many petty battles from those days. It shouldn't really be a big deal, but I don't think that the SC can break a promise to RMS. So either this "fix" has to be reverted or we need to ask RMS if it's OK. Since the named URL is just a mirror of the gcc.gnu.org bugs page, it's simpler to just revert the fix. Apologies to Wolfgang, Janis, and Gaby, none of who knew about this foolishness. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-02 23:47 Problem with the fix to PR 10234 Joe Buck @ 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Janis Johnson @ 2003-04-03 1:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: gcc On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:51:52PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > > Sorry to have to bring this up, but I was updating my bug list for > 3.2.3 and just noticed this. > > The fix to PR 10234 was erroneous. Sorry I missed it, but it should > have been closed as "not a bug". The fact that the URL printed by > released compilers for bug report instructions points to > > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html > > and not to gcc.gnu.org was something that RMS asked for and that the > SC agreed to. This goes back to the days of the egcs/FSF re-merger, > and was just one of many petty battles from those days. It shouldn't > really be a big deal, but I don't think that the SC can break a promise > to RMS. So either this "fix" has to be reverted or we need to ask RMS > if it's OK. Since the named URL is just a mirror of the gcc.gnu.org > bugs page, it's simpler to just revert the fix. > > Apologies to Wolfgang, Janis, and Gaby, none of who knew about this > foolishness. There was a different fix to 3.3 and mainline for this, and I also updated the web page itself to give its permanent location as the GCC site. At the time these changes were made, attempts to get to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html just showed a blank page. There are often problems with the copy (not a real mirror) of GCC pages from http://www.gnu.org. Shall I revert these? Janis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson @ 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-12 14:27 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-03 12:28 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-04 5:23 ` Joe Buck 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-04-03 2:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc wrote: > > The fix to PR 10234 was erroneous. Sorry I missed it, but it should > > have been closed as "not a bug". The fact that the URL printed by > > released compilers for bug report instructions points to > > > > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html > > > > and not to gcc.gnu.org was something that RMS asked for and that the > > SC agreed to. On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 03:40:50PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > There was a different fix to 3.3 and mainline for this, and I also > updated the web page itself to give its permanent location as the GCC > site. At the time these changes were made, attempts to get to > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html just showed a blank page. > There are often problems with the copy (not a real mirror) of GCC > pages from http://www.gnu.org. > > Shall I revert these? Please hold off just a bit. Since, as you point out, the mirroring is frequently broken, it may be best to just ask RMS to let us point direct to gcc.gnu.org. After several years of the current GCC arrangement he may feel more comfortable with it. Gaby, this is something that we'll have to settle before any 3.2.3 release, but I'll try to get it solved quickly. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-04-12 14:27 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-14 16:48 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-12 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: Janis Johnson, gcc Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes: [...] | Gaby, this is something that we'll have to settle before any 3.2.3 | release, but I'll try to get it solved quickly. Joe, You certainly have more information about this issue than I do. So, I'm OK with anything you think is best for it. -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-12 14:27 ` Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-14 16:48 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-04-14 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: Janis Johnson, gcc On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:43:48PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes: > > [...] > > | Gaby, this is something that we'll have to settle before any 3.2.3 > | release, but I'll try to get it solved quickly. > > Joe, > > You certainly have more information about this issue than I do. So, > I'm OK with anything you think is best for it. This one is settled; RMS gave us permission to use gcc.gnu.org in links. You don't need to do anything. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-04-03 12:28 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-04 5:23 ` Joe Buck 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-03 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: Joe Buck, gcc On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Janis Johnson wrote: > Shall I revert these? Joe already contacted RMS, so I suggest to wait for his response. (Given what I wrote in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-03/msg02243.html I do hope we don't have to revert your changes.) Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-03 12:28 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-04 5:23 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-04 19:33 ` Janis Johnson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-04-04 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc Once again: I wrote: > > The fix to PR 10234 was erroneous. Sorry I missed it, but it should > > have been closed as "not a bug". The fact that the URL printed by > > released compilers for bug report instructions points to > > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html > > > > and not to gcc.gnu.org was something that RMS asked for and that the > > SC agreed to. On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 03:40:50PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > Shall I revert these? We heard back from RMS. RMS still wants all GNUware to point to http://www.gnu.org/software/xxx (though there's a proposal to use xxx.gnu.org for all major tools and this may happen in the future). So the decision is that we need to revert, at least for now. He wants all the tools to follow a consistent policy, so we might be able to change it to the way many would prefer at some future point (at which time there would be a gdb.gnu.org, binutils.gnu.org, etc, though these might just be virtual hosts). Please adjust all references in the documentation and GCC itself accordingly. This has to be done before any new release. Sorry. Joe -- Q. What's more of a headache than a bug in a compiler. A. Bugs in six compilers. -- Mark Johnson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-04 5:23 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-04-04 19:33 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-04 19:43 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-07 20:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Janis Johnson @ 2003-04-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: Janis Johnson, gcc, pfeifer On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:27:56PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > Once again: > > I wrote: > > > The fix to PR 10234 was erroneous. Sorry I missed it, but it should > > > have been closed as "not a bug". The fact that the URL printed by > > > released compilers for bug report instructions points to > > > > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html > > > > > > and not to gcc.gnu.org was something that RMS asked for and that the > > > SC agreed to. > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 03:40:50PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > > Shall I revert these? > > We heard back from RMS. > > RMS still wants all GNUware to point to http://www.gnu.org/software/xxx > (though there's a proposal to use xxx.gnu.org for all major tools and > this may happen in the future). So the decision is that we need to > revert, at least for now. He wants all the tools to follow a consistent > policy, so we might be able to change it to the way many would prefer > at some future point (at which time there would be a gdb.gnu.org, > binutils.gnu.org, etc, though these might just be virtual hosts). > > Please adjust all references in the documentation and GCC itself > accordingly. This has to be done before any new release. Sorry. Joe, I understand the desire for consistency among the components of the GNU Project. It's vitally important, though, for GCC to provide URLs that can be accessed reliably. I'd like to push back on this before reverting the patches. The changes to the ICE messages in the active branches were made after http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/ was inaccessible for a few days. Some people who saw ICE messages and couldn't access the URL cared enough to track down the problem and report the bad link; others probably gave up and didn't find the page at the GCC site and we missed out on receiving problem reports. I don't know of other cases when the GCC pages have been inaccessible from the GNU site, but quite frequently we get complaints about the web pages at http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc being out of date. Usually they are updated every few days, but sometimes they lag much further behind the pages at gcc.gnu.org, where updates are visible immediately. The page referenced in ICE messages, bugs.html, was updated April 2 but the update is not yet available at the main GNU site. Before changing back the URL in ICE messages I'd like to know what the problems were that caused the old URL to get only blank pages for a few days, and to have some assurances that the URL can be accessed reliably in the future. Janis Johnson GCC Web Pages Maintainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-04 19:33 ` Janis Johnson @ 2003-04-04 19:43 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-07 20:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-04-04 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc, pfeifer On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 11:17:49AM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > I understand the desire for consistency among the components of the > GNU Project. It's vitally important, though, for GCC to provide URLs > that can be accessed reliably. I'd like to push back on this before > reverting the patches. You can hold off a little more, Gerald is still trying to convince RMS. But we may have to do it. The deadline for deciding is the 3.2.3 release; by that release, either we need to put the old URL back or we need to get permission to change it. > Before changing back the URL in ICE messages I'd like to know what the > problems were that caused the old URL to get only blank pages for a few > days, and to have some assurances that the URL can be accessed reliably > in the future. We'll try to get a commitment from RMS that he lean on the webmasters to be more responsive about fixing any problems. He was puzzled (as was I) as to why a broken mirror wouldn't just have a stale copy, but the key issue with me is that the FSF webmasters aren't diligent about quickly responding to problems. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-04 19:33 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-04 19:43 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-04-07 20:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-12 14:52 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-07 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc, Joe Buck On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Janis Johnson wrote: > I understand the desire for consistency among the components of the > GNU Project. It's vitally important, though, for GCC to provide URLs > that can be accessed reliably. I'd like to push back on this before > reverting the patches. To which Joe Buck replied: > You can hold off a little more, Gerald is still trying to convince > RMS. But we may have to do it. The deadline for deciding is the 3.2.3 > release; by that release, either we need to put the old URL back or > we need to get permission to change it. Janis, I just received mail from RMS where he gave us permission to "keep it as gcc.gnu.org", which means we don't need to revert these patches. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with the fix to PR 10234 2003-04-07 20:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-12 14:52 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-12 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Janis Johnson, gcc, Joe Buck Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes: | I just received mail from RMS where he gave us permission to "keep it | as gcc.gnu.org", which means we don't need to revert these patches. This is good news. Thanks to all of you! -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-04-14 16:33 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-04-02 23:47 Problem with the fix to PR 10234 Joe Buck 2003-04-03 1:03 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-03 2:08 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-12 14:27 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-14 16:48 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-03 12:28 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-04 5:23 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-04 19:33 ` Janis Johnson 2003-04-04 19:43 ` Joe Buck 2003-04-07 20:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-12 14:52 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).