Views from an Red Hat -> Ubuntu -> Fedora migrator

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org>

| http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
| 
| That was one of the problem with redhat 7.x

Thanks for the pointer.  I was conflating two different things 2.96
and EGCC (which mostly became 2.95, I think).  But I don't think that
they were unrelated events.

| They were too impatient to wait for 3.0 to be done.  It was far from
| stalled at the time.
| 
| But the decision makers at redhat just had to have the new gcc 3.0
| features that weren't quite ready yet.  Never mind what the gcc developers
| think.

So object code from g++ 2.96 could not be used on a system with a
different compiler.  Big deal.

Red Hat did support 2.96.  Since they supplied a lot of the manpower for 
GCC, glibc, etc., this hardly seems to be a stretch.

| If the gcc developers say "Don't do that", then that is NOT pushing
| development.  It is rather hindering it.  You are wasting their time
| with issues they don't want to deal with.  gcc 3.0 was getting close
| to done.

That doesn't seem to be the case.  Non-RH GCC developers' time wasn't 
wasted if they paid no attention to 2.96 users' bug reports (as I infer 
from the page you posted).

I admit that this is old news.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists