On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:39:08PM -0600, Michael D. Harnois wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:29, Terry Lambert wrote: > > "Michael D. Harnois" wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this can now be committed? > > > > > > > > NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers. > > > > > > OK, I'm confused. binutils has been broken for three weeks. We have a > > > patch that we know fixes, at the very least, one of the known problems. > > > However, it can't be committed without feedback from the developers. > > > > > > So having binutils broken indefinitely is better than applying a patch > > > that *might* have to be backed out or altered later? > > > > I believe the intent is to ensure that the patches make it > > back into the FSF distributed code, so that in the future, > > there is less maintenance required for FreeBSD platforms. > > This is all wonderful. > > But then it seems to me that the entire new binutils should have been > backed out until it worked. Just like XFree-4.2.0 was backed out.
It works in general for 'make world' and is suffient for FreeBSD developent -- the purpose of 5-CURRENT. It is also allowing us to find bugs that would otherwise go unfixed in Binutils 2.12.0 release. Or would you perfer we stick to 2.11.x forever -- BTW that would not give us support for IA-64 or x86-64. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
