Digital Wokan wrote:
Which makes me wonder why when I downloaded the beta of 7.2 for testing,
I was given a Cooker directory for doing updates from. Perhaps a beta
directory should have been made off of cooker when it was decided that
the cooker of then would become the 7.2 beta.
Which is
Digital Wokan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, good thing C++ coders only write from Mandrake then. After all,
if I were a coder writing software for testing against an alpha of the
new compiler, I'd certainly want to use an unofficial patched version to
test my software with.
/SARCASM
I
[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.
--
MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org
Antony Suter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope that the current gcc-2.95.2-mdk will still be kept around as
compat-gcc or similar...
You still have egcs for old compatibility compiler, but well like i
say for 7.2 we'll keep gcc2.95.
--
MandrakeSoft Inc
Warren Doney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this mean it's going into 7.2, or only that it's going into
cooker?
Only for cooker.
--
MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org
Paris, France --Chmouel
Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In either case 2.96 is the wrong way to go.
Like i said 100 is the way to go to be ready for the next version, the
compiler is the most important thing for a distribution if we don't
switch from the beginning we are not gonna to be ready...
--
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
Chmouel Boudjnah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In either case 2.96 is the wrong way to go.
Like i said 100 is the way to go to be ready for the next version, the
compiler is the most important thing for a distribution if we don't
switch from the
Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And for those of us mirroring cooker regularly to beta/release test it isn't
this going to introduce another variable if it isn't going into 7.2 release?
What problems can those of us who are regularly updating expect if we update
to 2.96 only to
At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
Warren Doney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this mean it's going into 7.2, or only that it's going into
cooker?
Only for cooker.
So you are saying that mandrake will NOT have another stable release before gcc
3.0 is released as stable!
I
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still a bad idea. See my previous posts. I have objected to putting
'broken' stuff in Cooker before. Just because it's an experimental
distribution doesn't mean I want it broken (since I use it on a day-to-day
basis).
And how do you want we develop if
David Walluck wrote:
On 10 Oct 2000, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
If you notice we have the flag and not [CHRPM] and not [FROZEN-CHRPM]
that mean it for cooker not for frozen install.
Still a bad idea. See my previous posts. I have objected to putting
'broken' stuff in Cooker before.
Chmouel Boudjnah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still a bad idea. See my previous posts. I have objected to putting
'broken' stuff in Cooker before. Just because it's an experimental
distribution doesn't mean I want it broken (since I use it on a
Mattias Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you are saying that mandrake will NOT have another stable release before gcc
3.0 is released as stable!
I cant find a roadmap att GCC's homepage, but do anyone know when they have
planed to have 3.0 released? If the Mandrake management are
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you 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
At 11 October, 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
We are gonna for sure to switch to this version with a /lot/ of fixes
patches. Why ? because we need to stay straight-forward (notice: rh
has already in the 7.0) we ensure to have the same ABI of libstdc++ of
Redhat (and this make a big differences
Yoann Vandoorselaere [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand your sentence
to be ready, we need to put stuff that may broken others stuff we need
to fixe..
--
MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org
Paris, France --Chmouel
Mattias Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this means that you are not going to release another stable release of
Mandrake before gcc-3.0 is released? Or does it mean that you are kicking the
gcc developers in the groin and release the next Mandrake release with
gcc-2.96?
It mean we
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
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:
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
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
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
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
That's a good point too - right now redhat is
losing a lot of respect and customers,
customers that will probably rush to mandrake
I really don't think it's going to be the gcc
2.96 issue that makes people rush to Mandrake, I
think it will have more to do with other few
hundred bugs in their
Oh, and something I forgot to mention..
It's fine to maintain a redhat like model but
to hell with remaining compatible.
It's crap like this that is going to ruin the
Linux community. Distributions *MUST* stick
together, we CAN NOT fragment to the point of
incompatibility.
Now, that said,
Why not just offer it as "hackgcc-2.96..." and provide both? That way,
we have a stable compiler series for critical stuff and a developmental
compiler for experimentation.
John
Which makes me wonder why when I downloaded the beta of 7.2 for testing,
I was given a Cooker directory for doing updates from. Perhaps a beta
directory should have been made off of cooker when it was decided that
the cooker of then would become the 7.2 beta.
Now it seems that instead of testing
Well, good thing C++ coders only write from Mandrake then. After all,
if I were a coder writing software for testing against an alpha of the
new compiler, I'd certainly want to use an unofficial patched version to
test my software with.
/SARCASM
I thought when a package was beta to cooker, that
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 ?
--
Bryan Paxton
Public key can be found at
WTF?!?! you have to be kidding - after all that redhat is going thru over
this? And the GCC group even said they weren't happy distro's were using
this!?
Just because Alan Cox said it was ok? I think GCC know's what they are
talking about.
ftp.debian.org time eh.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, you
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
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.
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 ?
If you notice we
Jason Straight wrote:
WTF?!?!
[]
* Tue Oct 10 2000 Chmouel Boudjnah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Move from hack to current.
- s|experimental|Linux-Mandrake mandrake-release|;.
- Merge with the old 2.95 patch (macros and updates-alternatives).
- Merge with the last rh changes.
Does
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
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Jason Straight wrote:
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.
That is true. They used to have egcs to compile the
On 10 Oct 2000, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
If you notice we have the flag and not [CHRPM] and not [FROZEN-CHRPM]
that mean it for cooker not for frozen install.
Still a bad idea. See my previous posts. I have objected to putting
'broken' stuff in Cooker before. Just because it's an experimental
At this point though isn't cooker basically 7.2? how are we supposed to be
testing what 7.2rc1 when it's going to have 2.96 and 7.2 will release with
2.95?
I would think that cookers development should be focused on the upcoming 7.2
release and not going past that until 7.2 is released, then
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, you wrote:
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
I fail to see how this could be good timing even if it's cooker and even it
it's not going into 7.2 final. Cooker is devel, yeah, but it's to test a non
final distro too. I think if they plan on what cooker is today being the
beginnings of 7.3 and yesterday's being the rc for 7.2 they should
Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see how this could be good timing even if it's cooker and even it
it's not going into 7.2 final. Cooker is devel, yeah, but it's to test a non
final distro too. I think if they plan on what cooker is today being the
beginnings of 7.3 and
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, you wrote:
Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point though isn't cooker basically 7.2? how are we supposed to
be
7.2 is gold (or nearly) now. So cooker will now receive more updates and
will be less stable...
Yeah - that's where the confusion with me
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 07:59:16AM +1300, Warren Doney wrote:
Does this mean it's going into 7.2, or only that it's going into
cooker?
It's going into cooker, that's what chmou tried to say when he wrote that
the tag was [CHRPM] and not [Frozen-CHRPM]
Alexander Skwar
--
Homepage:
At this point though isn't cooker basically
7.2? how are we supposed to be
7.2 is gold (or nearly) now. So cooker will
now receive more updates and will be less
stable...
Yeah - that's where the confusion with me and
apparently some others lies, no one had
mentioned that the cooker and
On Tue Oct 10, 2000 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Jason Straight wrote:
I fail to see how this could be good timing even if it's cooker and even it
it's not going into 7.2 final. Cooker is devel, yeah, but it's to test a non
final distro too. I think if they plan on what cooker is today being the
47 matches
Mail list logo
