On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Andree <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Matthias> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> Thats totally irrelevant, gcc-2.95.2 whether it's considered a
> >> release or not is unable to compile the 2.2.x kernels - well known
> >> issue that will not get fixed. One should not do that it's as
> >> simple as that.
> Matthias> I'm compiling my 2.2 kernels ever since gcc-2.95.2 came out
> Matthias> without any problems, so the "gcc-2.95.2 cannot compile
> Matthias> 2.2.x kernels" cannot apply to many of the subsystems that
> Matthias> I'm using. No crashes, no lockups that are not
> Matthias> hardware-related, no oopses. So why should I use egcs 1.1.2
> Matthias> if 2.95.2 does the job? There is no reason NOT to use that
> Matthias> latest gcc release.
> Just because it seems to compile the specific configuration you are
> using does NOT mean it will compile everything else correctly. Is that
> really so hard to understand?
Legislated safety hinders progress by those who accept and overcome risk,
and all progress originates with the actions of unreasonable people.
Thankfully, open source precludes subjection to autocratic tyrants (except
perhaps on IRC). Gcc 2.95.2 works fine here, your mileage may vary.
To Red Hat: Go for it! Shake up our world! Many of us remember you leading
the transition to glibc, and now (in hindsite) appreciate your actions.
Safety begets complacency. A little pioneering anarchy now and then may
be good for us all.
We can walk our road together if our goals are the same. We can run alone
and free if we persue a different aim. (Install Notes, NetBSD 0.8, 1993)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST