Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
> > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
> > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
> > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he decides
> > to outlaw gcc-2.96[.0] for reiserfs compiles.
>
> Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
> say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
> mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in nobody will
> read it and if you dont put anything in you get the odd bug report anyway.
>
> Basically you can't win and unfortunately a shrink wrap forcing the user
> to read the README file for the kernel violates the GPL ..
>
> Jaded, me ?
>
> Alan
I fear that you are speaking from experience about the complaints it doesn't
build, and that there is a strong element of truth in what you say.
That said, my opinion is that bug reporting load is not as important as bug
avoidance, but I understand your position has merit to it also.
Hans
-
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/
