[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Hawkins) wrote on 03.10.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior
> quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed
> packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own
> RPMS
> "Marc" == Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marc> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:27:36PM +0200, Jes Sorensen
Marc> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Looks to me like Alan's plonk was very appropriate here.
Marc> No, what Alan did was proving bad taste, or bad mood, or
Marc> whatever. This d
Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>
> Perhaps you're getting Redhat confused with Debian here. Redhat doesn't
> have package maintainers. It has 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters
> recreating the works of Shakespeare, a la "it was the best of times, it
> was the blurst of times"
Er... Just a side note,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:27:36PM +0200, Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't do much good if one of the compilers generates bogus output,
> but obviously you never had to deal with the bug reports coming out of
> distributors shipping $#@%$# pgcc as their default compiler.
I did, b
> "Harald" == Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> It seems that you are ignoring other major distros (Slackware,
Harald> Suse, Debian, etc.) as well as commercial software. By
Harald> providing an incompatible binary interface RedHat splits the
Harald> Linux community into 2 par
> "Marc" == Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marc> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox
Marc> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and
>> unofficial > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>>
>> And didnt you wri
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:37:26 -0400 Dmitri Pogosyan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, being just an end customer, I would not judge technical quality
> of RedHat packages [...]
With that kind of general attitude, I suggest you stay well clear of
used car salesmen (in particular).
> I guess you
On 2000-10-02T21:40:59,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary
> snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done
> completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e.,
> Why didn't the package maint
Hi there,
it is totally funny, how technical based discussion, and one of those
was the discussion wether using a unpublished non existent compiler and
a non existent release was a good idea or not , became suddenly a type
of self presentating thread.
> And severely biased groundless pointless Re
Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>
> One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior
> quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed
> packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own
> RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix th
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:40:59 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really
> thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using
Perhaps you're getting Redhat confused with Debian here. Redhat doesn't
have package
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:09:33 +0200
>From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:07:49 +0100 (BST)
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> influenced not to play games like this
Remind
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:33:31PM -0400, Horst von Brand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > many others.
>
> What makes Debian's package management "reasonable" where others aren't?
This *really* doesn't belong on linux-kernel.
--
-==- |
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then
> can you send me a diff
Actually for 7.2 i change our egcs package to add a kgcc script (which
call gcc with the egcs compiler) to be compatible with your last
changes on 2.2.18
> fyi you can compile with egcs with using "gcc -V`egcs-version`" for
> mandrake when you have the egcs package installed.
If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then
can you send me a diff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
Alan Cox wrote:
> I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. I got bored of
> libc2 a while back. I prefer change
Reasonable coordinated change, or reckless change?
How about shipping a new distribution with a 2.3.x kernel patched in-house to
get rid of most of the oopsen? This
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2.2.18pre12 (coming to a kernel archive near you in 2 or 3 minutes) now
> knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
> Arjan.
fyi you can compile with egcs with using "gcc -V`egcs-version`" for
mandrake when you have the egcs p
Richard Henderson wrote:
> The reasons are the following:
>
> :
> (2) C++ in 2.95 is already ABI incompatible with egcs 1.1 and gcc 3.0,
> so clearly (to my mind anyway) it didn't matter whether we
> shipped 2.95 or a snapshot, we would still be incompatible with
> Red Hat 6 and R
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> I said that, say that, and it's still true, yes ;) It's also true with the
> majority of other distributions not cited so far: debian (which has the
> advantage of a reasonable package management), slackware, stampede and
> many others.
What makes
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:20:25 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote
(Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
> Let this thread die. Now.
Unfortunately we have to detect a serious case of memory loss.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:30:09 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
(Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Martin Dalecki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> > > environment to use them :(
>
> Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide?
We are talking binaries here, b
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Horst von Brand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And a "deliberate decision" by a "bunch of guys" (which by some freak
> accident of fate just so happens includes several of the lead people on the
> involved software projects) can't ever be right, or even jus
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:07:11AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do you keep ignoring this point?
>
> I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'.
Hmm... there is some misunderstanding here, see:
> I got bored of libc2 a while back. I prefer change
Now, what w
> You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these
> libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant
The pthreads one was a forked someone version.
> came from the official sources and were compatible to the official
> versions. Even egcs made
> That what you say is simply not true, so what's _your_ point in claiming
> this?
Well, you seem to be down on voices to back you up.. You talking bogus.
> One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their
> platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or thei
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> > environment to use them :(
>
> And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE
> enviroment ??
I said that
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:36:00PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their
> > platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain,
>
> You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi inco
"Chris McClellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Their normal gcc is 2.96, which I'm sure you have heard 50,000 times now.
>
> RH7 also installs "kgcc" which is gcc 2.91.xx (the same gcc
> that comes with RH6.2).
>
> I believe if you set your CC to kgcc, you can possibly compile the kernel.
> Howev
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Obviously redhat did and does a lot of similar braindamage, which could be
> called "bugs" (no version of perl on redhat cd's really worked correctly
> for example).
> Again, the choice redhat did can not be construed as being some mistake by
> som
Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled
> > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> > environment to use them :(
Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide?
I wish you good louck gett
> I said that, say that, and it's still true, yes ;) It's also true with the
> majority of other distributions not cited so far: debian (which has the
> advantage of a reasonable package management), slackware, stampede and
> many others.
Well, than I still have to find out why this tool build
> One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their
> platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain,
You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets
of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats wh
> I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled
> on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> environment to use them :(
And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE
enviroment ??
Igmar
-
To unsubscribe fr
> this would be differemt, but AFAIK the redhat package management system is
> not able to provide for this).
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> So let's die this thread, or at least the name-calling right now. I'll try
> as best as I can to keep the disucssion to the original, on
> Well, the glibc-2.1 on redhat disks acted differently than the glibc-2.1
> in the cvs repository or on the ftp servers, but that does not mean that
> the actual glibc code is the culprit. Again, please read what I actually
> wrote, not only the parts that others have quoted.
Did you EVER looke
> > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
>
> Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> compiler, with all the consequences I said.
If you really want broken and expirimental stuff go work for M$ or so.
> > to flame SuSE, Conectiva, and
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:39:06PM -0400, Horst von Brand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled
> > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> > environment to use them :(
>
> Has happened on and off with e
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
>
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
>
> 2) Trying to compile the kernel source for 2.2.16 that comes with the
> redhat disk (which is very different than the stock 2.2.16) causes my
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled
> on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime
> environment to use them :(
Has happened on and off with each distribution I've ever played with. The
point
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:18:36PM +0200, Martin Dalecki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C++ ABI breaking: SuSE managed to break the VShop application in an
> entierly insane way between releases 6.1 and 6.2 - they stiupid did
> recompile the libstdc++ with a new compiler and didn't even
> bother to
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other
> Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until
> everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since
> there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved.
C++ ABI breaking: SuSE
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people
> > like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc
>
> they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
Hi Martin,
> WHAT? Are you nuts - they pay breed for many of the core kernel
> developers - I think if they didn't those would actually
> have entierly stopped working on Linux otherwise just after finishing
> scool and going into the real world out there. You can't hardly call
> this behaviour *d
ne else on this list tried it?
- Original Message -
From: "David M. Rector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM
Subject: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
1) It would not
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:06:52PM +0200, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering
> > Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of
>
> BTW, AFAIK gcc is the only large free software project that has an
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Froget about the "committe" stuff...)
>
> Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit about RH
> owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering
> Committee is to prevent any single i
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Martin Dalecki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain
> about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which
Now that's the problem. Claiming that redhat owns gcc (which is owne
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:50:44PM +0300, Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Aside of that pre-processor noice I don't know if 2.96 is really
Please keep in mind that there is no such definite thing as
gcc-2.96. There is the redhat version (with unknown changes to the
snapshot it ba
Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain
> about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which
> isn't.
> (Froget about the "committe" stuff...)
Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit
Marc Lehmann wrote:
> If you disagree personally or technically with me you either say this
> in public or private or keep quiet. Attacking me over totally unrelated
> things is obviously some maneuver to distract people from the real,
> kernel-related question, and I have no idea why you are doin
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> >
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
And then there isn't anything
Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> > > Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> > > influenced not to play games like
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> > Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one.
>
> Broken in what way? Testcase?
This is the worst:
#define half(x) ((x) / 2)
#define apply(...) apply2 (__VA_ARGS__)
#define apply2(f,x) f (x)
apply (half, X)
Expand
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one.
>
> Broken in what way? Testcase?
Propably the stricter interpretation of rules regarding ##
> BTW, VA's current kernel-in-testing has Trond's (now your! :-)) NFS,
> rock-solid NFSD from Neil Brown and Dave Higgen, and FXSAVE support
> back-ported from 2.4. I hope to get much of VA's kernel-in-testing
> patch set into mainline 2.2 ... keeping up with N/2 patches is 4x
> easier than N. (
According to Alan Cox:
> Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA
> shipped unusable NFS patches and broken PIII FXSAVE code that I'd vetoed
> from RH kernels [...]
NFS and FXSAVE. Ouch. Well, let's set the stage for the future:
I'm doing kernel coordination for
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one.
Broken in what way? Testcase?
LLaP
bero
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the
There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any
distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule.
So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they
want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to
obtain and install 'clean' sour
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> I agree about the "unreleased and unofficial" part, but it's not quite
> that broken and experimental. Everything that is shipped with Red
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taken on it's own, redhat never did anything which is not "politically
>correct" or "was just a bug that has been fixed". However, that redhat
>claims to maintain linux, gcc and other major projects (which is
>absolutely unt
The install process for 7.0 includes the opportunity to install kgcc. If
you look at its description it tells you it is for kernel compiles. Use it.
It works. Quit complaining and RTFM sometime.
This list has enough traffic it should not have to suffer from people who
cannot RTFM.
{O.O}
- O
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
>> However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
>> is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
>> supporting distributions that - without technical reaso
> 'Standard Linux'
> Should the core kernel define a standard Linux??
To an extent.
I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x
o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus
o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very
fussy
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 10:57:57PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
>
> They did.
O.k. let's disagree ;)
> > This really is an affront on your side, twisting reality quite a bit - the
> I noticed you carefu
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the
> mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently?
> Do
> > Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people
> > like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc
>
> they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
They did.
> > to the temporary ABI in 2.95 first - whomever
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:39:00PM -0700, Michael Peddemors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match...
And a pile of misunderstandings as well.
> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel?
D
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
> is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
> supporting distributions that - without technical reasons - make their
> products incompatible to what one
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
> > control it.
>
> You are excused this one and only time since I am fortunate enough to
> never have met you but listen carefully now:
An
I really didn't want to make a comment on this stupid thread but now
you are getting personal:
> > > OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> > > changes,
> >
> > We're doing no such thing.
>
> If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
>
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> > changes,
>
> We're doing no such thing.
If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
> I
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
> work on the basis they have any influence over me.
The logic is not quite right, but tt's definitely another story indeed.
> > the largest o
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> changes,
We're doing no such thing.
If we did this sort of thing, he would have been pressed into releasing
glibc 2.2 in time.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] did have some influence on choosing
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Alec Smith wrote:
> Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even get that
> disaster known as RH7.0 to even install. It died with some error about not
> being able to detect free disk space after formatting the paritions...
Please report this at http://bugzil
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet?
Sure...
> What a mess.
Not quite...
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Either use the kernel compiler (kgcc) or patch the file to be compatible
with
> After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages
I work for Red Hat. I can pick up the phone any day of the week and work
for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
work on the basis they have any influence over me.
> same) and free soft
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> compiler, with all the consequences I said.
I agree about the "unreleased and unofficial" part, but it's not quite
that broken and experimental. Everything that is shipped with Re
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
> actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
> wont compile pgcc that.
Well, I grant that supporting pgcc is n
> pgcc never was incompatible at binary level to gcc/egcs.
pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
wont compile pgcc that.
> That's simply a fact that you can't discuss away by attacking
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> >
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called p
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
Oh yes, of course while providing full bin
> > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
>
> Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> compiler, with all the consequences I said.
And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
*PLONK*
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
> > version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
>
> They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> projects because they receive bogus bug reports because redhat shipped
> a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
> version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler. Its not the
co
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> > Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> > influenced not to play games like this
>
> Remind me next ti
> to spot it, and ditto with any others who do the same. If everyone could have
> agreed a name for the kernel compiler that would be even better.
Sorry, I was probably unclear as I wasn't about the name of the compiler,
nor the neccissity of using an outdated gcc version for kernel compiles.
>
> administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
> refuses to compile 2.2.17 or 2.4.0-test9-pre7. "Aha!" thinks Daniel, "I'll
Actually it compiles both but I suspect you didnt RTFM ;). Use kgcc so you
get egcs building the kernel.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this lis
> If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> influenced not to play games like this
Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA
shipped unusable NFS patches and
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
>
> Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
> (redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is nei
Michael Meding wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
> the kernel source a little bit too well.
I dunno about all this... The stock gcc 2.96 works great for everything
on my box... It compiles and runs 2.4.0-test7 really well. I'm not
Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> > regard. Hopefully ISV's will be able to figure out for themselves that
> > it would be a Bad Idea to develop applications under RH 7.0, since it
>
> Sounds like a parallel world :(
>
> > If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> > Custom
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:37:56AM -0400, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not just gcc which RedHat did this to. They do this regularly with
They did this in the past with glibc and perl, for example, leading to
really "interesting" portability problems. I always thought the
Sound like "Embrace and Extend" with a different flavor, similar effect.
jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marc Lehmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September
Date:Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:10:59 +0200
From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
binary compatible to 2.95 nor to 3.0, cutting binary compat
OK, but I can't leave without pointing out that having gcc 2.96 breaks
compiling gcc 2.95.2. I've got Debian for my main machine and RH7 the other
machine on my desk as well as a couple of other test boxen (have to be
administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
refus
Alec Smith wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Alec Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David M. Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
>
> Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
binar
Please, do *not* start a flamewar about "my distribution is
larger/better/more stable/kinder to animals/whatever than yours" here!
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
-
To unsubscribe from th
> you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
> the kernel source a little bit too well.
>
> Did you edit the makefiles to use kgcc instead of gcc ?
2.2.18pre12 (coming to a kernel archive near you in 2 or 3 minutes) now
knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debia
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
