This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:54:37PM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> * H . J . Lu (firstname.lastname@example.org) [20000905 17:45]:
> > Why not xxxBSD just spend some effort to make sure the main trunck is
> > working for you?
> You seem to completely ignore the way *BSD trees are built/updated. There
> are some people that object to tracking moving targets, i.e. CVS versions.
I still don't see that is a binutils problem. It has been being done
this way for years in binutils. All other platforms have been coping
with it. My point is if xxxBSDs want something in binutils, they have
to do the leg work, not expecting the binutils developers to do it for