On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> > Yo,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > > Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > > > I heard from GNU that this isn't a production release
> > > > > Here is the link:
> > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
> > > >
> > > > We use it for cooker not for frozen, 7.2 will keep gcc2.95 stable
> > > > version with cvs updates.
> > >
> > > Read what people on cooker said... They do not want it.
> > > By doing such thing, you ensure that C++ coder using cooker
> > > will stop using it...
> > >
> > > Don't make the same mistake redhat did.
> >
> > Rather, I worry that you will lose a lot of users if you use gcc 2.96 for
> > cooker.
>
> I can't believe Chamouel basically says "Follow the leader." If Mandrake
> followed everything RedHat did as it did in the early releases, it would
> have nothing to offer over RedHat. Thankfully, this is not the
> case. However, now he says "RedHat did it so we must do it too." This is
> ironic because it is yet another way for Mandrake to stand out from RedHat
> and show their support for the GCC team and "stable" releases. Even I
> criticize Mandrake for their lack of stability. This certainly will not
> help. Please think of valid reasons instead of simply saying "Well RedHat
> is doing it so we have to do it too."
I don't agree with the reasoning behind that either, with following redhat
that is - if we were all followers there wouldn't be linux in the first place.
Although I guess I can see why they'd want 2.96 in cooker, cooker is for
development/experiment, and that's all. So using 2.96 in cooker makes sense
in getting ready for a stable new release from gcc, just so long as 2.96
doesn't make it into a final anywhere.
