From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3775 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2002 19:46:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3737 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 19:46:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host140.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 19:46:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (bernds@localhost) by host140.cambridge.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2SJkbC20180; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:46:38 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: host140.cambridge.redhat.com: bernds owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:58:00 -0000 From: Bernd Schmidt X-X-Sender: To: "David O'Brien" cc: Subject: Re: making a 2.95.4 release In-Reply-To: <20020328101809.C89458@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg01790.txt.bz2 On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, David O'Brien wrote: > Why couldn't Red Hat do that in the EGCS 1.0 days? Do what, exactly? > 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. 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. I might be persuaded, but it's not a simple matter of making tarballs and putting them on ftp.gnu.org. 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. Bernd