None of this is useful to me. I'm trying to make a case for why people should have confidence in GNU software. You are NOT helping me in that, I assure you,
We need to publish some simple steps that people can take to reassure themselves that the 64MB binaries that GCC 4.9 produces on Linux systems are normal and nothing to worry about, Why is that so hard? Where are the GCC experts on this list. Where are the people that actually care about the reputation of the FSF? Ian On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 September 2014 00:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 19 September 2014 16:21, Ian Grant wrote: >>> Thanks. But I asked what the non-vanilla sources were. I know what >>> the vanilla sources are, because I'm using them! >> >> The non-vanilla sources are everything else. That should be pretty obvious. > > Or as it says in the text you quoted: > > "This is in contrast to modified source from distribution for instance > that will usually add some patches" > > Vanilla source == unmodified source > > Non-vanilla source == modified source > > Any modified source. If OpenBSD modifies the source, it's non-vanilla. > If Debian modifies the source, it's non-vanilla. > > Personally I don't like the terms vanilla and non-vanilla but I think > their meanings are fairly clear.
