Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 09:54 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:50 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> Christopher Aillon wrote: >>>>> On 05/05/2008 11:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>>>>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the >>>>>> autotools while building. >>>>> It will also teach maintainers not to use Fedora for doing upstream work. >>>> I agree. This proposal seems to be all pain for no gain. >>> The fact Fedora ships gcc-4.3.0 is all pain for no gain. >> Certainly not! There's been a bunch of useful improvements, as you'll see >> on the gcc web page. > No disagreement, but .. there also are a lot of changes, which require > developers to change/update/rework their sources. > >>> Please add versions of gcc of all active GCC-branches, such that people >>> can continue to use f77 and c++'s backward stuff. >>> >>> Also consider adding a version of gcc which ships still supports libg++. >>> >>> Do you sense the insanity? >> I don't think this is a relevant comparison. > Why? It's in the following sentence. It really helps to read a message before beginning to reply. > You are using a dead piece of SW called autoconf-2.13, others are > using a dead piece of SW called gcc-2.7.2/egcs or libg++ or gcc-3.x.- > > The only difference is RH playing nice to people using outdated > autotools and pushing around people using outdated c/c++ code or > features/miss-features from older gcc's. > > In fact, you are aggressively forcing Fedora based developers to rework > their c/c++/fortran-code or to quit using Fedora, but you refuse to fix > your autotools-code? Double-standards! Even if all of that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that this proposal is all pain for no gain. >> Most importantly, gcc is a large >> package, so there is a considerable cost to shipping more than one version. Andrew. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
