On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> > changes,
>
> We're doing no such thing.
If you say so.... However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
> If we did this sort of thing, he would have been pressed into releasing
> glibc 2.2 in time.
Well, I actually do think that this has happened with glibc-2.1.
> > own people (e.g. from cygnus) who I really believe didn't support their
> The opposite is the case. They didn't want to have to support a dead
> branch (2.1/2.95).
So they took a snapshot of gcc that is known to be broken,
fixed it up a bit and released it as working code (from
http://www.redhat.com/products/software/linux/rhl7_new_features.html):
"GCC Compiler 2.96 GCC 2.96 allows for faster optimized code and more
complete C++ support."
This is neither true nor honest - there is no gcc compiler 2.96 (gcc
is named gnu compiler colelction, btw!), and that their version is a
seriously hacked non standard gcc snapshot, still, is alraedy causing
quite a few bogus bug reports.
It already forced the gcc maintainers to bump the internal version from
2.96 to 2.97.
> > Redhat might just hack their libc to be redhat-7.0 compatible
> That's what we'll do if any incompatible changes will be necessary -
> fortunately glibc supports versioning.
Yes. "Your product doesn't work? Our redhat libc works for your software -
download it here. no, the compatitors are not gnu/linux compatible". Great
future.
Anyway, my pont *here* is that the kernel shouldn't explicitly support
this marketing.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
