Re: redhat rawhide

Re: redhat rawhide

[Richard Kenner]

    I can see why they might need to stick with 2.96 because of redhat 7.0
    but still. Could you please give one valid reason for them doing this
    over using gcc 2.95? 

That's past history.  You can't "unring the bell".  I think a lot of
people agree that was a bad choice, but now that they've done it, I
don't think they have much choice but to continue to distribute that
compiler until GCC 3.0 is released.

Re: redhat rawhide

[mitch(rezn)]

I suppose so but it's still a messy situation. Such issues like that will
cause people to not want to use redhat.


Richard Kenner wrote:

>     I can see why they might need to stick with 2.96 because of redhat 7.0
>     but still. Could you please give one valid reason for them doing this
>     over using gcc 2.95?
>
> That's past history.  You can't "unring the bell".  I think a lot of
> people agree that was a bad choice, but now that they've done it, I
> don't think they have much choice but to continue to distribute that
> compiler until GCC 3.0 is released.

Re: redhat rawhide

[mitch(rezn)]

Perhaps if I recieved a answer but I didn't. Anyway, enough of this. I had no
intention to start a war on the gcc list. Let's stop these emails and let
everyone get back to work.


>
> Aren't you flogging a dead horse here?

Re: redhat rawhide

[dewar]

<<I can see why they might need to stick with 2.96 because of redhat 7.0 but
still. Could you please give one valid reason for them doing this over using
gcc 2.95? The gcc site even says that 2.96 and 2.97 aren't compatible with
official gcc releases.
>>

Aren't you flogging a dead horse here?

Re: redhat rawhide

[Joe Buck]

> I can see why they might need to stick with 2.96 because of redhat 7.0 but
> still. Could you please give one valid reason for them doing this over using
> gcc 2.95? The gcc site even says that 2.96 and 2.97 aren't compatible with
> official gcc releases.

Anyone who wants to answer this, please do it by private mail.  It's
not on topic for this list.

Re: redhat rawhide

[mitch(rezn)]

I can see why they might need to stick with 2.96 because of redhat 7.0 but
still. Could you please give one valid reason for them doing this over using
gcc 2.95? The gcc site even says that 2.96 and 2.97 aren't compatible with
official gcc releases.


Jeffrey A Law wrote:

>   In message < 200101162006.MAA26137@racerx.synopsys.com >you write:
>   >
>   >
>   > > I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
>   > > have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
>   > > Is anyone going to smack some sense into them?
>   >
>   > Please, let's not start another flame war on this topic on this list.
>   > Surely there's some Red Hat user mailing list you can use.
> Like Joe, I don't want to start another flame war here.    But just so
> everyone knows....
>
> Red Hat will be sticking with the same base compiler for its next release;
> it will (of course) have bugfixes since the Red Hat 7 release.
>
> I'm in the process of working with the various groups inside Red Hat to
> make sure we have appropriate documentation on precisely what compilers
> we're using, why we're using them, that will be made available to everyone
> that's interested.
>
> Flames to /dev/null please :-)
>
> jeff

Re: redhat rawhide

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 200101162006.MAA26137@racerx.synopsys.com >you write:
  > 
  > 
  > > I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
  > > have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
  > > Is anyone going to smack some sense into them?
  > 
  > Please, let's not start another flame war on this topic on this list.
  > Surely there's some Red Hat user mailing list you can use.
Like Joe, I don't want to start another flame war here.    But just so
everyone knows....

Red Hat will be sticking with the same base compiler for its next release;
it will (of course) have bugfixes since the Red Hat 7 release.

I'm in the process of working with the various groups inside Red Hat to
make sure we have appropriate documentation on precisely what compilers
we're using, why we're using them, that will be made available to everyone
that's interested.

Flames to /dev/null please :-)

jeff

Re: redhat rawhide

[Richard Kenner]

    If you actually think about it you should realize that, whatever you
    may think about the decision to ship "2.96" in RedHat 7, at this point
    the most sane and responsible thing is probably to use the same compiler
    (with only minor/critical bug-fixes), until 3.0 is released. 

I agree.

Re: redhat rawhide

[Per Bothner]

"mitch(rezn)" <gte203h@prism.gatech.edu> writes:

> I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
> have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
> Is anyone going to smack some sense into them? Granted, they still have
> time to change it but it would be some major bullshit to see redhat ship
> their next distro with gcc 2.96. However, if they care to continue
> making themselves look bad over such small issues, I suppose that's
> their problem.

And what else do you propose they ship, given that gcc 3.0 has not been
released yet?

If you actually think about it you should realize that, whatever you
may think about the decision to ship "2.96" in RedHat 7, at this point
the most sane and responsible thing is probably to use the same compiler
(with only minor/critical bug-fixes), until 3.0 is released.  IMNSHO.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

Re: redhat rawhide

[mitch(rezn)]

I have no intensions of starting a flame war. It seems that direct contact
with redhat employees has become more difficult in the recent year and I
figured the gcc list would be a better place to inform those of power to
get things changed. I personally don't care about redhat but even so, they
shouldn't ship gcc 2.96.


Joe Buck wrote:

> > I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
> > have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
> > Is anyone going to smack some sense into them?
>
> Please, let's not start another flame war on this topic on this list.
> Surely there's some Red Hat user mailing list you can use.

Re: redhat rawhide

[Joe Buck]

> I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
> have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
> Is anyone going to smack some sense into them?

Please, let's not start another flame war on this topic on this list.
Surely there's some Red Hat user mailing list you can use.

redhat rawhide

[mitch(rezn)]

I decided to check out redhat's rawhide directory and of course they
have gcc 2.96 in there even after the whole redhat 7.0 battle with it.
Is anyone going to smack some sense into them? Granted, they still have
time to change it but it would be some major bullshit to see redhat ship
their next distro with gcc 2.96. However, if they care to continue
making themselves look bad over such small issues, I suppose that's
their problem.