Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1 > > > packages: > > > > > > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support) > > > > As Redhat has demonstrated in the past, it is highly desirable that > > the distributed gcc is based on a released gcc as close as possible. > > If there are serious problems in gcc 3.1-as-released, work with gcc > > maintainers to fix them in 3.1.1. > > Completely seconded. I want the collection of patches that > distributors ship with GCC to shrink over time, not grow...
I see, I was unclear, the alternatives were hppa specific, I didn't even think of using anything else than the release ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
