I agree - if we wanted to be lemmings we'd be using windows. Redhat 7 is a
box of shit on 2 shitpucks, and now might be a time where a lot of ticked off
redhat users will want mandrake but not when they find out Mandrake followed
Redhat off the cliff!
I understand there's a special kernel compiler or something on redhat because
the kernel won't compile with 2.96? Is that so or am I wrong here?
In either case 2.96 is the wrong way to go.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, David Walluck wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> > > Why is mandrake going to a cvs snapshot of gcc ?
> > > You would think of all the much about redhat doing so, you'd think more
> > > than twice about a move like this.
> > >
> > > And even statement(I'd more likely call it an advisory) from the gcc
> > > team ?
> >
> > No kidding. And last time I tried the gcc 2.96 snapshot Mandrake had, I
> > couldn't compile even the most basic things with it. According to what I
> > read, 2.96 *will not* be compatible with 3.0, so neither is 2.95.2 BUT AT
> > LWAST IT WORKS. What are you guys doing??
>
> Well according to the gcc team C++ is the only real incompatibilty.
> But a few facts remains:
>
> 1). It's cvs-ware. Hence thecode relating to the currently compatible
> languages(such as C) between these cvs snapshots and current and upcoming
> offical releases can change, which further produces more incompatible
> binaries produced by thse cvs snaphots.
>
> 2). I think I can safely assume that the reason for this change to 2.9.6 is
> to keep compatbility with redhat. This should be the other way around.
> Redhat should be keeping compatible with other distros.
> Redhat is _not_ linux.
>
> That's my 2 cents on the situation at hand.
