> hi,
> first of all I don't know the overall quality of 7.0 since I'm just come
> back from my vacation, but I read many mails and news about in which
> people are criticize red hat why they include gcc 2.96 in 7.0.
gcc 2.96 is a development version. Its authors say it's not ready for release.
I don't think there would have been any argument had gcc 2.96 been put amongs
the preview pacakges. However, RHI has chosen to build the entire distribution
with it (kernel excepted) and has shipped two compilers anyway.
What I find unsettling it the number of packages reshipped already; the fact
so many problem packages have been found already suggests to me there are lots
more to be found. Not just obscure packages that hardly anyone uses either;
glibc is amongst them.
>
> ps. yes I know about the binary compatibility and the new ABI differencies,
> but than we can say rh have to include libc-5 and not glibc or glibc2.0,
libc5 should indeed be included, but not as the base libc, but for
applications users already have and which work well. Not everyone wants to go
through the process of recompiling and retesting their applications just to
move from RHL 5.x to 7.x.
IN some cases, it's not an option; even Linux users use code that comes in
binary-only.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
