On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com> 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 owned by
the FSF) is one of the major points in this discussion. I am sure you just
made a joke, but I miss the smileys...
> And then there is drepper@redhat.com - so wht's up with the glibc?
The same, see above :( Go through the changelog and you will see that
drepper is by far not the only coder. Hey, I even see @suse in there. A
lot! So what's up with glibc? Did you fell for some company's marketing
droids? Surely you didn't...
> I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take
> even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable
> versions.
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 :(
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST