On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with > a real workload looks like.
No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that aren't enabled by default sometimes. > It's a stupid thing to say anyway, because > who is to say their system is more real than mine or yours? By that logic, you've already said that any system needing GNAT is less real then others, because it's not enabled by default. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.