>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Lehmann <pcg@goof.com> writes:
Marc> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:27:36PM +0200, Jes Sorensen
Marc> <jes@linuxcare.com> 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 disucssion simply does not belong here and has
Marc> nothig to do with the now-off-topic disucssion about binary
Marc> incompatibility.
So far you have mainly used this as an opportunity to whine over Red
Hat.
Marc> As such, what Alan did was a cheap trick to try to draw
Marc> attention away from the real problem. He didn't succeed, of
Marc> course and I only accurse him of a temporary bad mood which I
Marc> can certainly live with ;)
What real problem? The issue of C++ was well explain, gcc 2.95 is
broken beyond repair and until we get the new 3.0 API/ABI set in stone
there isn't any real reason to even try to be compatible. WRT the
glibc-2.2 shipping then this is not going to be an issue unless there
is going to be an ABI change between now and the final 2.2 release and
then thats going to be up to RH to solve that problem - Ulrich clearly
stated that he wasn't going to take RHAT's distribution people into
consideration if there was a need for an ABI change it would
happen. Thus in this case all there is for people to scream about is
*if* an ABI change happens and RHAT doesn't deal with it properly.
Marc> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:38:01PM +0200, Jes Sorensen
Marc> <jes@linuxcare.com> wrote:
>> release? Maybe you should stop insulting the people who are
>> actually doing the Free Software work
Marc> Like myself??
You rudely insult quite a few free software developers claiming
they've put their souls up for sale and they'll budge for coorporate
pressure. So far you have proven none of those claims - which makes it
nothing but insulting.
Marc> Only a very small part, actually. That means that everybody
Marc> should play well together, rather than trying to force
Marc> non-standards onto others.
Everybody agrees that glibc-2.2 is the target to switch to as soon as
possible, whats your problem with that? It is the future standard.
>> glibc-2.2 was put out as a release candidate. gcc on the other hand
>> I don't expect to see being released anytime soon enough for it to
>> make sense (I might be wrong),
Marc> FYI: gcc is already "released" since quite some time.
Yes gcc-2.7.2.3, 2.8.1 (eeek) or egcs-1.1.2 - gcc-2.95 is too broken
to even consider.
>> binary compat problems, so far nobody has even been able to agree
>> on the naming scheme of the shared libstdc++ package, we just have
>> to wait for 3.0.
Marc> Unfortunately some company couldn't wait. The higher numbers
Marc> probably...
Oh rubbish, you have the choice between egcs-1.1.2 or gcc-2.96-cvs,
you pick the latter if you want to consider reasonable C++ support and
want the future API.
Jes
-
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 - 21:00:13 EST